Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive926

To whom it may concern

I was told this was a more appropriate place for the request I made here [1]. I'm not into infinite hoop-jumping, so take it for what you will, but I'm not going to invest a lot of time in follow-up to this observation. I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

First, did you notify User:Cuzkatzimhut that you were presenting a complaint about them here? This is a requirement. See the top of the page.

Second, what I see is that Cuzkatzimhut reverted your addition of a template at Dynamical pictures with the perfectly civil comment "It is detailed at mathematical length subsequently, Pls discuss in Talkpage before vandalizing." Other than the characterization as vandalizing, which you might (but probably shouldn't) take exception to, what exactly is abusive about this? And did you take the editor's suggestion to discuss on the article's Talk page? It appears not from your editing history. General Ization ^Talk 03:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, true, but let me add that Cuzkatzimhut's comment, that the IP should get an account so "they can be talked to, responsibly and accountably", I object to the sentiment and the statement. Drmies (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

He does have a point. IP editors can't be pinged, and the router in my office recycles the IP every time the phone rings, meaning you can't easily notify somebody if you want to talk about something (as the relevant user talk page changes with the wind), and can only blindly hope they stumble across your talk page post, which doesn't happen too often. (As for how I know all this, an exercise for the reader, not that I'd advocate doing the odd edit as an IP when you're supposed to be on wikibreak, oh no...) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

So it is possible that Cuzkatzimhut has a bad attitude when it comes to IPs and their edits. The question remains whether and how that attitude has manifested itself in some behavior that is appropriate to discuss at ANI. So far, I see none, and this is not the attitude correction noticeboard. General Ization ^Talk 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

A minnow on their talk page reminding them that good faith edits aren't vandalism.--v/r - TP 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Small reminder that I was asked to post here, after already having tried elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cuzkatzimhut seems to have some sort of bad attitude, when it comes to IPs. But, a lot of editors here have a bad attitude towards everyone.

[[2]]

however he also seems quite proud of being able to click on the whois link for IPs and post their locations, which despite whois being easy to use, is also borderline outing. [[3]] User_talk:131.111.176.163 [[4]]

I'd suggest that someone might want to have a word, and suggest that he treats IPs with a little more respect, and more importantly, he needs to stop hunting around whois so he can put their locations in his edit summaries. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• Someone might want to suggest appropriate use of twinkle too.

"Reverted good faith edits by 207.72.1.90 (talk): Unwarranted & tendentious: " Well if its tendentious its not a good faith edit is it?

"Created page with 'Would you like to get a WP account? It gives you an inside track and obscures your Cambridge IP coordinates--should you be inclined to be concerned....". "Reverted 1 edit by 131.104.23.9 (talk): Evidently they skimp on dimensional analysis at Guelph. Please think before you trash!" - Both insulting and indicating they are routinely looking into IP locations. The use of naming peoples locations - while not outing per the policy - is certainly prodding the edges of the spirit of it: "Reverted 1 edit by 128.61.123.55 (talk): Does what you wrote appear proportional to the inverse in Atlanta? please desist from vandalism.",

"Reverted 1 edit by 128.138.191.69 (talk): Dick you check where a point on the x-axis goes?" - Just insulting.

"Created page with 'Please get a legitimate account. Peremptory reverts especially on controversial flagged issues such as this one are frowned upon by Wikipedia." "Reverted 1 edit by 155.69.125.175 (talk): Can you please get an account so this can be discussed instead of PEREMPTORY REVERTS?" - while reverting... Incorrect anyway, for the moment editing as an IP is a legitimate account and so on.

From looking at their history they appear to have an ongoing problem with IP's editing articles they are watching, mild to moderate incivility depending on how annoyed they are, an inaccurate and out of process understanding of the rights allowed to IP editors, as well as an inaccurate understanding of what is 'vandalism' on wikipedia (no it is not something you disagree with, or even something that is factually wrong). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think my opinion here is not worth a whole lot (I'm not an admin, and I have been blocked a couple of times) however, this might be a situation in which a respected admin talking to this guy, one to one and explaining what is and isn't good, might go a long way. It's all simple stuff "don't state the location of IP editors and don't make comments/edits based on if an editor decides to make an account or not." Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the moment we start treating one opinion as being worth more than another just because of a couple of short blocks, we might as well hang WP:AGF out to dry, because we'll have pissed all over it _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly right. My feeling is that Wikipedia is often an unwelcoming place for IP users like myself, due to disproportionate responses by some editors. I understand that there are problems, but why does that make me part of the problem? I like the trend towards automated vandalism detection, as I believe that is much more neutral. I will be much happier with the general state of affairs when WP assumes good faith, and when the wiki-lawyering is reduced to a minimum. At that point, it might actually feel like I'm part of a respectful community again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.167.67 (talk) 16:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Well said. The more universal that attitude becomes, the better this place will be. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean "Dick you check where..." but "Did you check where...", which my check-speller garbled and I could not amend--of course I would be apologetic for that! "Tendentious" could be in good faith but still counterproductive. "Outing" of the IPs location is an illustration of why IPs might opt for an account; WP provides these in plethora for a reason. Besides, tell me you did not notice the more than one different IPs from the same area all hacking at the same page in barely technically competent terms. In science matters, it is not true that misconceptions are plain "mere differences of opinion".

In the same breath, I would invite the self-summoned jury to also consider the pitiful erosion of perfectly good articles by lack of adequate patrolling against anonymous swarms of IPs, impossible to address and to investigate. A well-meaning experienced editor may simply observe the undeniable extent of the erosion and suggest workable countermeasures against this critical vulnerability, instead of obsessing on civility aspects. The fact is that pages ignored by page watchers for two months collapse into washed-out sandcastles by largely clueless IP sniping and either take enormous effort to restore, or else the watchers shrug them off and drop them off their watchlist. (Students at sites such as PE Exchange then execrate the low-quality "garbage of Wikipedia" which had, of course, seen better days.) I strongly believe you should also consider this serious and central issue of protection in the same breath as manners, and not walk away from it as somebody else's business... "let them fix it". Citing WP policy pages and endless discussions do not fix crises.Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

All of the wikipedia research is very clear. Most edits by IPs are good edits. Most good edits come from IP editors. You are wrong. Your attitude sucks and has driven away some good editors. Your behaviour is problematic; you need to change. If you really want to continue to push IP editors to get an account (and you shouldn't, because 5 pillars and because they way you've gone about it so far is pointy and disruptive) you shoud read eg this: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/05/16/anonymous-editor-acquisition/ DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

outing someone to illustrate why they should make an account, is like setting fire to someone's house to illustrate why they should have bought a sprinkler system. well, it isn't exactly the same, but I'm sure you get my point. Yes, IPs can jump into wikipedia and cause chaos, however it takes an IP about 30 seconds to make an account, and they are still just as capable of causing just as much chaos. It's frustrating. I don't really like the idea of "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" - I'd prefer a trust system in which it would take a user months to gain the sort of access required to make edits. But we don't have that. We have this. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

To be sure, we have this. However, I hope the irony might not be lost on you that WP has all these anti-sockpuppet measures for registered users, but any mention that one is noticing or correlating locations on IPs is thought to be bad form. You must have seen the jubilant mischief perpetrated through that loophole, now, haven't you? Are you inviting me to illustrate? My pleas for help in the last 10 years for protection against it have fallen on sluggish ears, so I have long since given up on those. Pardon the monotony, but I would like to re-center the issue on practical prevention of the flood of unprovable and possibly unwitting damage: the "open whiteboard effect". Talk pages are there for a reason. I disagree that a registered user causing chaos is no more accountable than a bevy of swirling IPs, though. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Or alternatively, you could accept that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and stop harrassing IP's to register. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

"Harassing"? Phew! Maybe hectoring to discuss first, a WP policy. IPs have long realized that messing around is fun and with no consequences. Leave stacks of markers on a public library table. Did it occur to you why scientists snort when they hear WP and send one to Scholarpedia, instead? Do you see IPs represented in talk pages? That's your solution to the central question I'm posing? Let anonymous and unresponsive IPs trash all they can without practical redress mechanisms? (Just take a look at the edit history of Quark: you think "whack-a-mole is fun and business as usual?) Routinely request dozens of page protections? Unintentionally you may be all but arguing for benign neglect of systematic degradation of articles. I insist on my challenge to you: How is one to protect technical pages from "playful" IP degradation without an army of patrollers --- who clearly fail in their job quite badly, at least in the technical pages of WP. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quark, did you say? I would be more concerned about your edit that reintroduced vandalism into the article after an IP removed it. Another IP has since removed it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right on this one; but, of course, it illustrates my chaos of "whack-a-mole" I brought to your attention: I slipped a version in my revert, but, judging from the June 3 activity of the page, you do appreciate one's frustration. I would not like you to lose sight of the central point I am making here, however, that, if consensus is the central pillar of WP, how do you achieve consensus with anonymous figures in the night who will not talk to you?. I'm still waiting for an answer, rather than perorations on the rights of IPs. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want the IPs to contribute constructively in Wikipedia, then you should have treated them nicely. Your attitude is disruptive and concerning. The problem with you is that you assume bad faith before assuming good faith. Outing IPs is not a valid reason for IPs to register in Wikipedia. It is their choice, not yours. I think Cuzkatzimhut must be topic banned + access to Twinkle revoked (if that's possible), to prevent this user from driving away more potentially constructive editors (which includes all IPs of course). IPs do not want to talk to you because they know that it will just be a waste of time for them. They already knew that you were hostile towards IPs. Pokéfan95 (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Two small points. IPs do not talk to me, or you or anyone. If they do not use the Talk page, they throw their bricks in the night and nobody can talk to them. "Outing" is a silly hyperbole: I divulged public information, which WP provides to all and everyone uses. I have correlated malefactors hounding the same pages, from the same areas, though. I have not "outed" them, but considered their actions suitably. I do not assume bath faith automatically. But if you witness the depredations on important pages by the same characters that we encounter on technical pages and you advise for ignoring or coddling their bad behavior, so be it. Remember, though, you are advocating banning etc, for a registered account. If I were 200 IPs without an exact record of 10 years service, we would not be having this conversation. Before censorious rants try answering the central question I keep posing and reposing. What do you do? 23:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Cuzkatzimhut (talk)

Plenty of IP's talk to people all the time. You are clearly naming their locations in order to chill/intimidate them into registering. Wikipedia has already determined that IP's can edit and that is a valid choice for them. This is a non-discussion. If you dont like having to deal with the occasional drive-by vandal, you are free to go to scholarpedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody said IPs should not edit. This is a canard you created by strenuous cherry-picking of my record. They should, however, stick to the same WP rules that registered editors do, and discuss their actions, not with me, but with all editors. Many do. We are discussing the ones that aggressively don't. I'm not in the business of intimidation---is anyone on this self-assembled crowd? IPs should be as accountable as anyone else: they are not a protected species. In fact, WP is encouraging them to register. I would beg you, however, to go back and look into why I barked to the people I did, and what recourse I had at the time. It is the question I keep asking, but nobody here dares face. And, no, we are not dealing with "occasional drive-by vandals", we are dealing with massive and routine rambunctious vandalism. If you feel you can get volunteers to reverse it by the thousands, why haven't you? Why do you rely on my likes? Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly with what is Cuzkatzimhut being charged with, and what would be the appropriate consequences?

I see that one editor is above suggesting a topic ban. It is so downright stupid that my wristwatch just stopped.

Falling back on general hubbub about the merits of IP users is not going to do any good for the articles that are involved in this discussion. The fact that IP users on average improve WP articles does not mean that they improve all science articles. They don't, by far. The articles at most risk are the articles that I suspect Cuzkatzimhut's has on his/hers watchlist (probably mathematical physics related ones). Some of these benefit from IP edits, some don't. The "popular ones", like Quantum mechanics, decidedly do not. Others, highly technical ones, like Lie algebra extension do the few times they are edited, because they are sought up by experts only. Articles in more pure mathematics do not suffer badly from the same problem. The difference is that there seems to be a 10 to 1 mathematician to mathematical physicist ratio. The mathematicians take turns reverting bad IP edits.

The above paragraph highlights the prevailing situation for the articles involved here. You have a one to many ratio of competent editors to incompetent editors. I am much less concerned with some IP's feelings getting hurt for being reverted than concerned about the articles. And, face it, it is the revert itself that hurts. Nobody likes being told they are wrong (even when they are). That same person just cannot feel personally offended by being told why he/she is wrong. This thread actually proves me wrong. The OP does feel offended enough to "punish" a competent editor. Wow! No! Really, this IP is just hurt for being reverted, just like anyone else, and is after revenge - not like anyone else.

Now it is suggested by some that all accounts, including non-accounts, are to be treated equal. Guess what? They are!. If you make a bad edit as a named user, you'll be reverted – sometimes in a rather derogatory fashion. If just a fraction of the, shall we say "sharply formulated", edit summaries I have encountered directed to named editors would have made it to the admin noticeboard, then I'd be gone, whether I'd be the "victim" or not. The problem would not the "sharply formulated" edit summaries, it would be the intolerable habit of bringing minuscule near-nonsense issues to the admin noticeboard that would be the problem.

If any user is feeling that proper discussion cannot be made in the edit summary, and that simply leaving the comment field empty is too weak, then I support that editor in formulating things sharply. It may deter the IP from making further bad edits. This is good. We aren't interested in the bad future edits. We are interested in future good edits. Sharp reverts prevent the bad future edits and encourage the good future edits. YohanN7 (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for arriving late. (My own laptop has died so I have to use other computers when possible/allowed). I really don't understand why the IP says "I've got better things to do with my life than wiki-lawyering". Well why make such a fuss here then (of all places)? Cuzkatzimhut is not a random idiot editor like me, but a reputable expert in the articles he edits. Nothing he does is offensive or destructive. His dialogue may seem unusual (even to me), but it is not "rude". A number of other editors (some IPs, some registered users) have before taken Cuz as offensive exactly as the above IP has done here. If you can't tolerate his language/behavior you have a very low threshold. All this silly "political correctness" and "treating each other nicely" is never going to happen. If anyone thinks of it, there should be NO topic ban on Cuz, we're lacking valuable editors and some have been driven away just because they were impolite. This pointless thread should be closed a.s.a.p. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see any extensive history of Cuzkatzimhut reverting IP edits. It would help if the OP gave some diffs. There are some low quality posts on Talk:Observer effect (physics) from User: 24.63.50.134 and I can understand if Cuzkatzimhut got frustrated with them. But, it's best to stay civil in these situations. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Experiencing Harassment and Stalking at the hands of User:Guy1890

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Guy1890 has been harassing me for weeks now despite multiple requests on his talk page to tone his behavior down. This is a Conduct Issue and it has not been resolved even after multiple third parties took part in it. I think this user would benefit from a 30 to 90 day ban to take a short vacation from the site to cool off, and a discussion given to him by a neutral wikipedia administrator on his behavior.

He has a long history of incivility.

A sample of his incivility towards me:

"can we move on from this nonsense?"

"brand new editor with little to no prior Wikipedia edits - go push your POV on another website."

"Wikipedia does not exist to push your own, biased Point-of-View (POV)"

He is stalking me on other people's pages, as he points out here when he quotes me on the user page of an editor he has never posted to, but somehow he ended up on that page and quoted me posting on it.

A sample of his incivility towards others:

"go away IP hack editor" in response to "Please do not attack other editors".

"Run along [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/50.35.51.239 anomymous IP editor with no other edits to Wikipedia, ever."

"You can go away now"

"LOL...in other words, an editor like yourself that has a history of edit warring & Wiki-gamesmanship isn't qualified to be sorting anything like this mess"

I have warned the user 3 times in the past on his page:

1. May 11
2. May 12
3. June 3

I tried to keep this as short and easy to read as possible. I can't keep editing on wikipedia if you don't stop this person from harassing me. Kswikiaccount (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a look at the diffs, and while Guy has been a little blunt and mildly gruff, I don't think there's much I would do at this stage other than get his side of the story (I see he has been notified of this thread) and see what I would do from that - if I made any sanctions for "go away" I'd be a laughing stock on this board. The only two comments I would make, which I have made before, is that facts and claims are what are reliable (or not), and saying "'x' is a reliable source" (or not) is usually not very helpful unless it's qualified with which fact is under contention. Secondly, the Democrat primaries have been all over the news for months, so it is not particularly surprising to see brand new editors come along and chip their 2c into how the article should look. I personally think telling somebody who's being incivil to politely stop being incivil is like pouring gasoline on a fire, myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Like, "Or is it everyone else that is at fault except you, the god?". Does seem as if a) you are pushing a certain non-neutral PoV, and that b) You are either breaching or almost breaching editting restrictions as a commonplace. Just FYI. On edit: and retaliatory for this thread above, which, while opened by another editor, also involved you 'against' Guy1980...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes this marks the second user that this person has taken issue with in less than 24 hours, I agree with Fortuna that there is some POV pushing going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• This user is stalking and harassing me. Make him stop. Kswikiaccount (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a non admin user that offered on opinion and then closed this discussion even though it explicitly states "Do not close discussions in which you have offered an opinion".

Unresolved

Kswikiaccount (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's not an argument, this editors is stalking me, and now a second user is stalking me on the site. Why am I being mocked? How is this is not being taken seriously? I knew you had a problem with sexism, but this is bad. Kswikiaccount (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity Kswikiaccount, how do you get "sexism" out of anything above? ‑ Iridescent 21:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You say you've been harassed "for weeks". "Weeks" (less than 5) is the total amount of time you've been here. That suggests you've got some things to learn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Yay, Wikipedia again making a mockery of human decency. Stop explaaaaaaining away sexism with giggles and snorts. No wonder women don't want anything to do with this place if even the most blatantly obvious bigotry gets explained away and excused. 24.244.29.47 (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, can you actually point out an example of sexism in anything above? As the closer of the thread, I went through every diff linked, and while I can see some snappiness I certainly can't see anything I'd remotely consider sexist; indeed, as best I can tell not a single editor above either discloses their gender or mentions (or even alludes to) anyone else's at any point, other than User:Kswikiaccount assuming User:Guy1890 is a "he". ‑ Iridescent 22:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that 24.244.29.47 (talk · contribs) has a grand total of 4 edits - all of them useless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd like to first thank whomever closed the above thread for doing so. There has unfortunately been a lot of POV-pushing on the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 page and its talk page for a while (probably too long) now, and the OP of this thread (who has edited under at least a few IP addresses, including this one, besides the one used to make this OP) has unfortunately been one of a few editors poorly attempting to do some of that POV-pushing. I've not seen anyone "harassing", "stalking", or "mocking" the user that posted this OP, but what I have seen is this same editor edit-warring and making a fair amount of disruptive edits...many of which were highlighted above in an AN/I thread that I recently posted in. Obviously, this thread here is a (failed) attempt at retaliation for me "daring" to post in that thread. I am, in fact, male BTW, but this has nothing at all to do with "sexism". Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel that this should be closed, and everyone move on (something that has been tried more than once now). If that isn't a viable option though I would recommend at the very least that Kswikiaccount listen to the advice of other editors who are trying to help. It isn't just me who is seeing a pattern develop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Emarroquin1995 reverting improvements to multiple articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've recently made a number of gnoming changes to various articles to bring the formatting closer to the guidance in WP:MOS and fix a few minor errors. User:Emarroquin1995 has taken violent objection to these changes where they affect articles he has contributed to (User_talk:Colonies_Chris/Archive/2016/May#Trolling_.26_Unnecessary_Edits), and he has repeatedly reverted them. I've explained in detail the reason for these changes on his talk page (User_talk:Emarroquin1995#General_improvements); he deleted my explanation and accused me at WP:RVAN of vandalism; this accusation was immediately rejected (see history of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for 8 June at 21:04). He has also reverted User:Wisdom89's reinstatement of my changes to one article (see history of Mob_Rules_Tour). I warned him that if he reverted my edits again I would take action against him, so here I am. Can someone please make clear to him that repeated reversions and hysterical accusations of vandalism are not acceptable behaviour? Colonies Chris (talk)

Just a comment since I've become involved in this scuffle. This goes beyond being merely a content dispute or edit warring, the user has exhibited a rather disharmonious and nasty attitude towards editors who attempt to amend his edits. This can be exemplified by my interactions with this user back in October 2015 [5]. The user constantly ignores attempts to communicate and simply removes sections from his talk page [6]. That's his prerogative, but this coupled with their refusal to use edit summaries makes collaboration nearly impossible. Does this require current admin intervention? Doubtful, but at the very least the user needs to be warned about this sort of behavior.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and notified User:Emarroquin1995 of this discussion.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging by the above diff and these diffs,[7][8][9] Emarroquin1995 has a very severe problem with both civility and assuming good faith towards another editor who is simply following WP:OVERLINK. There is also clear signs of WP:OWNERSHIP with comments like this one. Would suggest a strong warning by an administrator about civility and that edits he disagrees with are not vandalism. I don't think a warning from a non-admin would be impactful. —Farix (t | c) 19:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed and [10] is beyond the pale in terms of incivility, cluelessness, and no personal attacks.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 20:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and violating WP:CIVIL. A strong (level 4) warning by an admin, making it clear that he will be blocked if he continues this, might work. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Farix, I wasn't doing anything wrong. They reported me just to spite me. I've been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I haven't had any problem with anybody Wikipedia ever except with Wisdom & Colonies Chris, and this whole thing started because Colonies Chris made unnecessary edits, which he claims are general improvements, and he couldn't sound more arrogant saying that itself, but I really don't see how they're since he deleted links to other Wikipedia pages like for cities, countries, etc. that didn't need to be deleted, & I don't see why it wouldn't hurt just to keep them. Overall, I've seen his edits, and they're completely unnecessary, after he edited them the first, I just reverted it. No problem. Plus, the only reason why I found out about it is because I went to go edit the pages myself just to correct some misinformation as well as to add information that wasn't already there, then all of a sudden, I see the pages are different, and that, when I went to go edit them, I ended up getting into that edit conflict, so that's how I found out about the problem. Then all of sudden, the next day, I see that they went back to the way he had edited to them, and then I went to go revert it again, and then the day after that, I saw they were different again, and it just kept going on & on. Then I found it was Colonies Chris that was doing, and quite frankly, it was getting really annoying, so I told him that he needed to stop otherwise I'll have him reported, so then I put them back to the way they were before, and they were like that for a week. Nothing happened. Then after a week, I saw that they had been edited to the liking of Colonies Chris, so I reported him for vandalism and I let him know that he was reported on his talk page. Then all of a sudden, I get messages & notifications saying I've been reported & that basically I'm the problem because I'm apparently trolling him, even though he's trolling me if anything, considering weirdly enough, he's only doing on pages that I either created or contributed to. I've never had this type of "edit-warring" problem with anybody except for him. Then I also saw that this Wisdom guy went along with Colonies Chris trying to further valid his report just to get rid out of spite. I'll admit since I have nothing to hide, I've had a previous run-in with Wisdom since I had created some Rush tour pages & I was still in the middle of creating some & then he tried to have my pages deleted since he claimed they were unnotable & that they had been previously deleted so they apparently no right to be on Wikipedia, so the. I told him, he can contest to the pages all he wants, but that he doesn't speak for all of Wikipedia, and he even challenged me by asking why I thought the pages the pages should stay, & believe me, I gave my reasons on the talk page & not to blow my own horn, but they were valid reasons. Furthermore, I told Wisdom if he didn't like the pages, that should've just left them alone & if he didn't like them, then that's his problem, not mine, and it wasn't like I was trying to hurt anybody. I just wanted to create these pages for the fans, which I'm still doing. However, he didn't listen, and he deleted the pages anyway, since he's ignorant. Now he's trying to get back at me for whatever the reason. I don't know I'm not him, and it doesn't make any sense considering he won that battle since it wouldn't revert the deletions, and that information has been long lost & I'm still trying to find what's been lost. Overall, I haven't had any problem with anybody else on Wikipedia except with those 2 immature little punks, and I'm not trying to be insulting. I'm just being honest, and quite honestly, I have 0 respect & tolerance for jerks who go ahead & do whatever they want even if it means messing with other people's stuff. To be even more honest, & again, not trying to blow my own horn or anything, but I'm a nice, respectful, civilized person who doesn't want to hurt anybody, who wants to be left alone, & just keeps to himself, but when it comes to people like Wisdom & Colonies Chris, I'm not going to nice & respectful towards them & it's people who make my job of being nice & respectful. Like I said before, I don't like bullies &/or scumbags who think & act like they could do whatever they want, even if it means being a jerk to other people like me in general, but in this case, I especially don't like the ones who think & act like it's okay to vandalize other people's stuff. Overall, I told them multiple times to leave me alone, & they refuse, so please help me by keeping these guys away from me, and seriously, I'm not the problem, they are. I know it's 2 against 1, which doesn't look good for me, but again, I wouldn't make any of this stuff up, & why would I? So please help me.

Wow... that's a lot of ampersands. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Also the largest wall of text that I've seen in a couple weeks. WP:WALLS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your wall of text merely bolsters the points already made in this thread and does little to help your case. My advice to you is to quit making long laborious posts that cry foul and think long and hard about whether you actually have the temperament to edit Wikipedia.  Wisdom89 ^♦talk 21:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are referring to edits such as these[11][12][13], they are clearly within the bounds of editing AND follows guidelines, such as WP:OVERLINK, WP:NOPIPE, and WP:MOS. However, your own comments show that you believe that you "own" these articles and can dictate which guidelines apply. On top of that, you personally attacked Colonies Chris, erroneously called his edits vandalism when they were clearly not, and generally acted in a hostile manner from the very beginning. This behavior is completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Issued a 3RR warning to Emarroquin1995 for edit warring on Appetite for Destruction Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).[14] —Farix (t | c) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

All I see is "revert", "revert", "revert". I've given them 48 hours to calm down and take in what WP:AGF means Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:13, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Jack Sebastian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like for an admin to take a look at this personal attack and false accusation by Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs). For the backstory, you can see Talk:Natalie Portman#RfC: Is the language biased?, followed immediately by a second RfC after the first one didn't go his way. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The comment was borne out of Sundayclose wiki-stalking me to another person's talk page where I asked for advice on how to recraft an RfC (the person being asked was the RfC closer). Getting followed around by someone who you know doesn't like you is downright fucking creepy, and by someone with an ax to grind is doubly so. If Sundayclose is going to be upset at my language, perhaps the user might try avoiding replying to my edits in pages where they don't need to. In short, Sundayclose needs to stop adding all the drama-queen nonsense. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

And I'd point out the factual errors of Sundayclose's assessment of the RfC and its follow-up, but - as has been noted here ad infinitum - this area isn't for content issues. It bore mentioning so that folk weren't swayed by the semantic game the user just tried - though (s)he's certainly worked his/her ass off to muddy the waters at the RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I left a message on the same editor's talk page where Jack Sebastian left a comment because that editor closed the RfC we were both involved in. If leaving one message on one talk page where Jack Sebastian commented is "wikistalking", I'm guilty as charged. In any event, there's also the issue of Jack telling me to fuck off. And the baiting for an argument with personal attacks continues here. Sundayclose (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, knowing that they can check such things, are you actually claiming that you do not watchlist my page or visit my edits? A simple yes or no will suffice. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, even though there is no policy against watching talk pages or watching others' edits, and it happens quite often on Wikipedia. There is, however, a policy against personal attacks. Sundayclose (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Sundayclose, you know what wiki-stalking is, right? Because I am getting the impression (from your response) that you might not be actually aware of what that entails. Following my edits is fine, until you attack me through them. You and I don't like each other. You know this. So why provoke a negative response? I asked you to stop stalking me. Instead of respecting my clearly stated wishes, your immediate response is ignore that request, run here, and demonstrate more passive aggressive behavior. You cannot expect the rest of us to be oblivious to your little game. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when was telling someone to fuck off a personal attack, in any case? _Muffled ^Pocketed 02:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It ain't. It's a crude way of saying "Get out of my sight." It's perhaps uncivil, depending on the provocation it's said in response to, but it's not a personal attack. Neither would "Your edit is fucking useless", where "fucking" is used as an intensifier. "You're a fuckwad" would be a personal attack. BMK (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It was crude, and I let my temper at being hounded get the better of me. It wasn't an article; it was someone's talk page, and the comment they were responding had nothing to to do with them. They just "happened" to be around and posted a snipey little snippet. Maybe I should have just let it go, but my annoyance at the user's manipulative behaviorI got under my skin a bit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes people get irritated and say stuff they probably shouldn't. Neither of you is exactly covering yourself in glory here, so how about you agree to just drop it and move along before things get worse? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent Disruptive Promotional Editing at University of Law by User:Legrepunalycou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AN

This user has continued to add promotional material to this article, going against talk page consensus and reaching the point of disruptive editing. Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the OP's failure to notify Legrepunalycou as is required. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the set up at the user's main page is the info about the University of Law. I'd estimate that most if not all of the edits are with regards to the school. It seems to be an single-purpose account, and I am not seeing the required neutrality necessary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, block and close, please someone. Now get this rig outta here. _Muffled ^Pocketed 03:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 37 hours (it will expire at 5PM British Summer Time, if I calculated correctly) with explanation at the user's talk. Reaganomics88, please remember to provide diffs or other evidence in the future; WP:WIAPA specifies that this kind of allegation, made without evidence, is considered a personal attack. On a more mundane level, it's easier for reviewing admins to block someone if the evidence is just one click away, so you're more likely to get a quick response that way. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Nyttend. We need more eyes on this article. This is becoming a massive pain. The current editor under consideration is but the latest of many similar ones. This article is one of a suite of articles on for-profit education businesses owned by Global University Systems and on the personnel of its various institutions. Apart from Global University Systems, which I created to make clear the obfuscation which the company perpetrates concerning which institutions it actually owns and controls (as opposed to "educational partners"), they have all been created and/or heavily edited by editors with a clear conflict of interest. Sometimes declared (2 editors), but far more often undeclared but blindingly obvious from the content and pattern of editing and slips like this one on Commons. There is also a considerable history of sockpuppetry related to this suite of articles and more background at the multi-editor discussion at Talk:London College of Contemporary Arts (owned by the same company). In a word, ugh. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wtshymanski reverting good faith IP edits - again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP editor makes this good faith edit to the article Germanium. I have to assume that it is a good faith edit because although no edit summary was left, the deleted claim is not mentioned in the provided reference.

Wtshymanski, in spite of a recent warning and an editing block, has reverted the edit in violation of his editing restriction (not to revert any edits from IP address editors).

In another equally recent example. A good faith addition from an IP editor. Another bad faith reversion from Wtshymanski.

Not only are these a violation of that restriction, but they must count as an unambiguous defiance of his editing restriction and the very ethos of Wikipedia (the encyclopedia anyone can edit). If these continued harrassments of IP address editors are not someone who is WP:NOTHERE to co-operate in building an encyclopedia then what is? 85.255.232.219 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Restriction for Wtshymanski is logged here if anyone wants to know. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reblocked, escalating the duration from the previous block — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are admins going to do when the block expires and the behaviour continues? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=653436768#Editor_routinely_reverting_contributions_from_IP_address_editors. DanBCDanBC (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The threatened action is for applying blocks of increasing duration. At some point, patience will be lost and an indefinite block will be applied. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that as this is the second block for violating the editing restriction is that the indefinite block should be applied at the next violation. After all, as I stated above, it is an unambiguous statement of having no intention of complying or of allowing IP address editors to make their contributions. 212.183.140.6 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this promotional?

A brand spanking new editor is adding a link to Avison Young, the leasing agent for the building 1501 Broadway, to the external links section of the article. I believe that this is promotional, since it does not provide our readers with any additional information about the subject, thus violating both WP:PROMO and WP:EL. The editor persists in restoring the edit to the article. Am I wrong in my estimation of the quality of this link? BMK (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The front page of the building's website has a section talking about Avison Young, so it's not "mere" spam. Lacking an official website for the building, I would say that we should include Avison Young, since it's apparently the owner's website, but WP:ELMINOFFICIAL reminds us that multiple official websites shouldn't be included unless all of them provide unique and important-to-the-reader information, and since Avison Young is focused on leasing space and doesn't provide much other information, it's probably not helpful. So basically, I'd say that it's more of a mundane thing, an item that could be included but probably should be excluded. However, I don't understand the point of having a link to Newmark Grubb Knight Frank, so your removal of it is what I'd call despamming. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

User circumventing block again

User Mikequfv was blocked for his disruptive editing last month. He broke his first block and then, as a result, had his block length increased to "indefinite" and had the IP that he used to circumvent the original block, blocked as well. (Reports are here and here.) Since the original two blocks, there have been edits from other IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that match his style of editing and thus seem to be him. Today there has been a renewed effort to push his changes on articles where he's previously made attempts that were reverted, at Victoria, BC and Arica with this IP. Air.light (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikequfv. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

A defiant IP!

Hi there. some days ago, I had an argument in Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification with two other guys about adding some pictures. finally [an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dennis_Brown] engaged the argument and blocked the article and ordered us to talk about the pictures. So I started a polling in the talk page and invited the two others to make an agreement. At the end of the polling two of us admitted to add two of the pictures, but the IP threated to remove the pictures (against order of the admin to act on result of polling).

Unfortunately, the admin is on vacation and can't help us. So I ask you to make a decision about the IP and our pictures. Thank you.Sarbaze naja (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Defiant? Please see WP:IPHUMAN. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the page.

• The dispute appears to have started with an objection to there only being images of the Iran team.
• Two editors (Sarbaze naja and 94.155.238.11) started edit warring.
• Sarbaze naja asked for semi-protection and was shot down because it was clearly a content dispute ( Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Rolling archive#Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification ).
• Sarbaze naja reported 94.155.238.11 at 3RRNB. This resulted in page protection and warnings to both ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318#User:94.155.238.11 reported by User:Sarbaze naja (Result:Full Protection ) ).
• Sarbaze naja then presenting a "here are seven images (Iran vs. France, Iran vs. Japan, Iran vs. Poland, Iran vs. Venezuela, Iran vs. China, Iran vs. Canada, and Iran vs. Australia) please pick the best two" question and got one one response by GAV80 (who previously said on the 3RRNB "This gallery not needed on that page. Only User:Sarbaze naja wants to add gallery, all other users from that page don't want it.") picking his favorite two.
• Then we had a threat by 94.155.238.11 to edit war some more.
• And finally we have Sarbaze naja running to ANI.

So we have two editors who are willing to edit war to get their way, one of whom tries to get admins to support his side in a clear content dispute, and really no substantive discussion on the article talk page about whether there should be images at all and whether they should all be of the Iran team. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Another defiant IP!

Unrelated (but fitting the title) there is some IP that for years and years has been engaged in one hell of a Lamest Edit War, that ranges back to 2011 regarding the Lost episode "Because You Left". By its very definition the IP's number floats, but the last ones have been consistent. Don't know what to do, given the page was already semi-protected once exactly to stop this stupid behavior. igordebraga ≠ 17:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If this has been going on for five years, indefinite semi-protection is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Maybe the account In Citer has been compromised. He has recently made bizarre edits and received a warning from Doug Weller. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I am a little surprised that this was given a warning instead of a block. The user continued being disruptive after the warning and I have given a 1 week block which I think was generous. I see no reason to think the account is compromised, this sort of hateful speech seems to be in fashion. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 00:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I should have blocked at once. It was his clean block record that deterred me. At the time I hadn't seen his statement of article ownership either. I did tell him that he might be banned from articles dealing with religion, which could be done as a requirement for an unblock from an indefinite block. 06:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page blocked & tagged edits removed for no reason. (T._P._Lahane)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

T. P. Lahane has been bocked by: User:Diannaa

Everything that was removed from the page was tagged & sourced from newspaper articles. No reason was given for the block. Does she/he down wikipedia ?

Please remove this block. And let truth & justice prevail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soundofthesea (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Please inform users you report here, as it states at the top of the page - I've done this for you now -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 09:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Diannaa did not "block" anything, she simply removed some content that violated copyright, which is perfectly correct. Please read Wikipedia:Copyright violations, and in future try approaching the person in question in a civil manner before coming here to launch attacks on their integrity. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Truth, justice and reasonably priced love! Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC):

• Just 2 lines of the entire page were cut & pasted from a newspaper called "Mumbai Mirror". And they have been removed. If anything else looks questionable I humbly request User:Diannaa to talk with me before taking unilateral steps. I am a reasonable guy who has a masters degree in logic. Please see this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqJzHNl5OEM User:Soundofthesea

As you've been told by multiple users and admins, the content removed violated copyright, the edits are NOT from a neutral POV and the source given was not reliable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit history of that page is appalling. I don't think I've ever seen an article with that many revdels before. Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Every edit except 4 from April 7 on has been revdelled. That's just insane. GAB^gab 16:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history of Diana, Princess of Wales and see how many revdeled edits are there (Every edit from 14 April 2012 to 31 January 2016 is revdeled because of copyright violations). —MRD2014 T C 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

GAB, what are you saying is "insane"? The fact that someone keeps coming back and repeatedly making the copyright infringements despite knowing that they will just be reverted? Or the fact that an administrator removed the copyright infringing content from public view? If you mean the first of those, then I agree, but there are a lot of insane people who spend a lot of time doing pointless things on Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note:Soundofthesea has been blocked for WP:NOTHERE by @JamesBWatson: --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I see another possible misunderstanding of how revision deletion works - so for clarity, revision deletion does not remove content. The copyright infringements were removed manually as a normal edit, and then every revision that contained those infringements was hidden from view - from the revision that first contained them to the final revision before they were removed. Any changes made in those revisions which were not part of the copyright violations have not been removed and are still in the current revision. As an example, I could choose any article and rev-delete every single past revision, and that would not remove a single word from the current article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

But would that mean that an editor could not see who had made a particular change in an article, and when? RolandR (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - the past revisions could not be compared to see what change was made and when. If it is only the content that needs to be hidden, then the editor and edit summary (including the section name if applicable) would still be visible, so that might provide some clue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsuprisingly there is socking, webhost/proxy use etc. at play here. I've semi-protected the article for a couple of weeks. Not sure if the most recent edit (which I reverted) has the same copyvio issues, someone more familiar with the history may want to check. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It was identical to one of the sections removed from previously hidden revisions, so I've done the same again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brenda Allison

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ankhsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has a long history of trying to create an article Brenda Allison (it has been deleted loads of times on Wikipedia because she is not notable). All this user does is add the name Brenda Allison to articles, or add information about this person on the articles Human magnetism and Nefertiti.

As of June 2016, this is still going on [15], this user has been doing this on the human magnetism article since September, 2015. This user has been blocked in the past in February (check their talk-page, after they were blocked they claimed that Wikipedia is racist because they are black [16]). Interestingly when I google search the name "Brenda Allison", a twitter page comes up which makes this same unfounded statement [17], Ankhsn recently tried to insert details about Brenda on the Nefertiti article which matches what is discussed on this twitter [18]. This user is here to promote herself, not build an encyclopedia. Given the fact they seem to have had countless warnings I am just interested if an admin will look into this or not. HealthyGirl (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If you actually check this users disruptive editing since the 5 June [19] on the Nefertiti article, I am amazed that this user was never blocked. HealthyGirl (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prous Science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two SPA editors Josepdavidana (talk · contribs) (since 19 April) and the newly-created Janajuliapuig (talk · contribs) have recently been contributing to this article by unexplained edits adding large chunks of copyright text, badly translated newspaper articles, and at the same time removing sourced content (and sometimes categories etc). I've now reverted 3 times today so am backing off, but perhaps an admin could have a look. PamD 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help needed on MfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone please create for me the proper pages to nominate User:Stemoc's user page for MfD? The instructions there aren't working for me, as I seem to be stuck in a loop. The reasons are that I believe the Trump banner on the page violates WP:POLEMIC and WP:UP#Promo. Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, I managed to figure it out, but those instructions really need to be fixed. Why don't we have a script that does all that stuff for you? Commons has one to nominate images for deletion. BMK (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:SwagLlama420

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please block User:SwagLlama420 and remove his userpage. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: You should see User:SwagLlama420... The MFD you started seems to be broken. And you forgot about User:Makeamericagr8again. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted SwagLlama420's user page as the references to Nazism were clearly out of line. Makeamericagr8again's page probably falls afoul of WP:NOTWEBHOST but I'd like to see discussion/a second opinion on that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest deletion of User:Makeamericagr8again. We generally allow limited expressions of political affiliation to be included on a userpage, unless the information is highly offensive. However, this entire userpage is a political polemic, which is not at all permissible. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, not sure if relevant or not, but the account has made extremely limited contributions since its inception. Not counting the ones made to their own userpage I think I counted 2-3 minor contributions total. It actually appears that the account was made simply for political purposes. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GentleCollapse16

I want an interaction ban imposed on GentleCollapse16. He keeps going to articles I contribute significantly to or have before and absolutely shitting on my contributions. This has been on-going for a while and I have no idea how it got started or how back it goes, but these are just a few recent examples of the editor's belligerence and hostility toward me:

• Deriding my bringing Maxinquaye to featured-article status; in response to a recent addition to the article, he posted comments at the article's talk page, in the section of an archived RfC, deriding my contributions and attacking me ([20], [21], [22]). The RfC that was meant to address a past complaint of his has expired and been considered "obsolete" in its closing, yet the editor has not moved on.

• Removing long-standing material (that's verified by sources in the article) from There's a Riot Goin' On (15:47, 4 June 2016, 23:52, 10 June 2016)

• Removing a paragraph I added last month to Miles Davis (03:00, 11 June 2016 --> 03:08, 11 June 2016); part of his rationale is an attack toward me and comes off the heels of me reverting a recent edit of theirs at the first article listed in this post.

• Genre warring at Axis: Bold as Love, after I had expanded the material dealing with critical reception/genres (02:04, 4 August 2015, 17:55, 4 August 2015, 08:19, 25 May 2016, 08:44, 25 May 2016)

• Dismissive comments at To Pimp a Butterfly in an RfC that resulted in my favor (29 April 2016

• Going through the editor's history, I noticed they've had similar attitudes and made similarly dismissive accusations toward other editors/contributions while asserting the superiority of their own revisions (Karl Marx, post-punk (where the editor seems to conflict with others there often[23], [24], [25]), Unknown Pleasures, Closer (Joy Division album)

Just to note, I reported a previous incident instigated by the editor at ANI and nothing was done in response to it ([26]); @Boing! said Zebedee:, @Diannaa:? Dan56 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just suggested to Dan56, rather kindly I think, for a personal attack on GentleCollapse (actually, two); they're edit warring over there somewhere over something insignificant. Dan said I should look here, so here I am. It is clear to me that some of the comments that GentleCollapse made are unacceptable (like this--WTF?) It is also clear to me that these two feed off each other. Here is GentleCollapse being a total jerk to Dan56, after Dan56 himself started pushing the point in an all-too personal way.

  This report is ancient; I think I know why no one looked at it. Dan, you've been warned about certain types of comments before, and you have a reputation as an editor who lashes out sometimes. (I don't know about your opponent: I presume nothing.) Moreover, no one wants to enforce two-way iBans, and that's the second I say that today. However, maybe that could be a solution. Or some kind of strict civility parole, where the first a-holish comment gets a block.

  You may have already left a snide remark on your talk page while I was going through these edits and typing this up; I hope you realize that I just spent fourteen minutes of my life on this. I'll end by pinging the two admins you pinged before. @Boing! said Zebedee:, @Diannaa:. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Requesting a talk page interaction ban

I am asking for an interaction ban between myself and Jytdog. I am asking that he not post any messages on my talk pages; my two usernames are: Bfpage and Barbara (WVS). The second account was created to allow WikiEd and my supervisor at the University of Pittsburgh to track my edits.

Here are the messages that he has left on my talk page(s) from the most recent to the first:

1., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6., 7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 12., 13., 14., 15., and 16. The diffs are many but a short history might be helpful. The first few interactions had to do with my editing of the Sexism article when he believed I was part of a conspiracy of men dedicated to gender parity. He questioned my motives, my gender, and other personal information that I provided to him to assure him that I really was who I said I was.

The other diffs are related to a discussion about a 3-day block placed upon me by Kevin Gorman. I am sure he would provide information regarding my block if he is available.

Administrator Kevin Gorman posted the following on the top of my talk page after he read the messages that were being posted by Jytdog and others.

As a result of Jytdog,s discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious talk page posts, I feel he is “following me around”, hounding, and stalkingme. I feel personally attacked. His uncivility has negatively impacted my own enjoyment of editing. I believe that the unnecessary emotional distress caused by his posts has had a negative effect on the encyclopedia since it impacts my concentration in creating content. His messages and edit summaries are distracting from the work I do on building an encyclopedia. Time I could spend editing has been taken up with dealing with his distressing talk page messages.WP:HOUND.

I remain unaware of any specific communication between Jytdog and administrator Kevin Gorman because for a time I was relieved to see that the harassment had ended. Now uncivil edit summaries by Jytdog continue to increase and he is back on my talk page. Though I’ve not done the math or examined the editor interaction log, it also seems as if he shows up relatively quickly after some of my edits. I am only asking for an interaction ban where he would not be able to post on my talk page. I don’t post on his talk page anyway since I thought that might reduce the tension that exists. Thank you for your kind attention on this matter. I will contact Jytdog on his talk page.

Best Regards and thank you for your kind attention,

  Bfpage |leave a message  18:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a helluva lot of words. Did you expend any on notifying the parties you have mentioned...? _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jytdog and Kevin Gorman were notified.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for fun! I looked at all Barbara's diffs above. What I found was Jytdog giving Barbara good advice, which has clearly been ignored by Barbara. There are a number of things I could suggest, but perhaps the simplest is to ask Jytdog to not post on your talk page any further. He wont post on your talk page any further, except of course if policy requires him to. Simples. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 18:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog was asked to not post on my talk page and honored that request for a while. I would like a more formal discussion with other editors. Good advice can be supplied with different words than were used for me.   Bfpage |leave a message  19:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As someone mentioned your post has a lot of words, and more to the point 16(!) diffs. It would help the rest of us get a handle on the situation if you distill this down to the few diffs that are most relevant (not more than 3 or 4). Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• The background. When Bfpage first arrived here, she ( and I never thought she was a man) was editing per the mens rights agenda and was hounding User:Flyer22 in icky ways like thanking people who were trashing Flyer, and was sanctioned for that, per this ANI thread. I believe the comment I made that prompted this over-reactive posting was this which is self-explanatory and was reacting to a mild form (a mild form) of the kind of behavior that she were sanctioned for originally (The editor on whose page Bfpage posted is one with whom I have been in disputes with). Bfpage, if you don't want reminders, don't make trouble. You said you were going to leave that behavior behind. There is no need for any kind of i-ban; we rarely interact. There is a need for Bfpage to just knock off the baloney. Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• Jytdog and I differ on how to deal with certain problematic editors, such as probable sockpuppets (I'm not making any allegation here), but that's because I tend to take a blunt and direct approach, and he prefers to deal with such editors in a much more gentle manner. Because of this, I would be very surprised to find Jytdog being "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious", since my experience is that he is always exactly the opposite. I'm going to delve into Bfpage's diffs now, and if I find that they are not clear examples of such behavior, I shall probably return with a recommendation of a WP:BOOMERANG. BMK (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I have laboriously gone through the 16 edits provided by Bfpage - the oldest of which dates from a year and a half ago! - and, as expected, found nothing there to back up their contention that Jytdog has been "discourteous, accusatory, discourteous, disruptive and contentious". I do see, however, evidence that Bfpage has exhibited some of these behaviors. (If I am remembering correctly, wasn't there a brouhaha a while back about this editor, who presented herself as female, but posted strongly in favor of men's rights, raising suspicion that the reported gender was a smokescreen?) If Bfpage does not want Jytdog to post on their talk pages, Jytdog should honor that ban, but then Bfpage should avoid situations in which they come into conflict with Jytdog. I don't think that a BOOMERANG for Bfpage is in order at the moment, despite the misrepresentation inherent in this report, but I do recommend that should they make another report against any editor without providing true supporting evidence, then a sanction of some sort should be levied on them. BMK (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, and in case it wasn't clear from the above, an I-BAN is totally unnecessary, pure overkill. BMK (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses and the recommendation that Jytdog not post messages to my talk page. The most recent post to my talk page was not mild. I do not consider my work with another skilled and excellent editor where we were (are) improving content to be trolling. The fact that Jytdog has had disputes with this same editor is/was unknown to me. Since I don't follow his editing, it is impossible for me to know with whom he has had conflicts. I can only know about his conflicts with other editors by checking the standing interaction bans and noticing if he has any there. My request was not to rehash old drama, but to help deflect the possibility of future drama. I already avoid situations where we come into conflict. His edits always follow mine. (no more diffs for me). I am also sensing my incredible distress and uncomfortable-ness with what I perceive as hound-like behavior to be irrelevant to those commenting here. What misrepresentation can be in the expression of how an editor has been negatively affected by the postings on their talk page? We both edit in project medicine and therefore, for my purposes alone, what would a valid 'report' look like-one that might result in sanctions such as blocking me? Certainly, this is something I would like to avoid. I would also like more time before this discussion is closed for Kevin Gorman and others to respond.

Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  23:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

User talk:LeonRaper

Can we remove his TP access already? He is constantly spamming it with nonsense. TJH2018talk 23:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you notified the editor on their talk page? Check that. Nakon 23:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Please list this at WP:RFP. Nakon 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this. Nakon 23:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@TJH2018: Simply remove the user's talk page from your watch list. Tiderolls 23:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Two-Way IBAN

I am requesting that a two-way IBAN be enacted for User:ScrapIronIV and myself. In the past few months, there has been a significant amount of conflict on both ends, and though I do not get along with ScrapIron or even like him, I do acknowledge that he, like myself, is very useful to the Wikipedian community in several ways. So, rather than asking that he be blocked, or asking that I be blocked (which would be a little ridiculous), I feel an interaction ban is necessary to stop the conflict between us. I consider the main problem to be that he has recently (and remotely) reverted my edits without a clear reason why, other than that I made them. He also made this change[28] in my userspace earlier today, which I found to be highly contentious, unnecessary, and ridiculous. Since when do users need to source personal information about themselves or where they live? As if I would cite a source revealing my home address on a public level... So, in summary, I ask for this not to win a conflict or defeat an enemy, in fact, I cite peace as my main reason. I no longer want to be involved in conflicts while trying to edit my userspace or the mainspace with any users, and I feel that this action, originally recommended by User:Ian.thomson, is necessary. Thank you, and happy editing. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say I suggested rather than recommended. I will note that both of them could spend all day trying to dig up dirt on each other but I haven't really seen enough to go "ok, that's it, I'm blocking one of you" (though I have not cared to sift through the mounds that both could dig up). I'm not really gonna discuss this much more than what I just said because of exams (starting another one right now). Ian.thomson (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored this from the archive because the situation was not yet resolved. I ask that nobody tries to archive it again until a response is given. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Lord Laitinen: You know, the admin corps are extremely bad at enforcing mutual IBANs. Many IBAN-violations are so blurry that if ScrapIronIV violated it and you reported them, you would potentially face sanctions for the action of reporting them. If one were imposed, chances are that either (a) neither of you is being intentionally disruptive, and all you needed was to be sternly told to go your separate ways, so the IBAN was unnecessary, or (b) whichever one of you is intentionally antagonizing the other will find some way to game the system and violate the IBAN without actually doing so in a manner that will bring sanctions down on them, at least in the short term. Unless the dispute between the two of you has caused the community an unbelievable amount of hassle, I think imposing an IBAN would be a bad idea in general, and requesting one for yourself is not going to end well. If ScrapIronIV and you are both amenable to staying the hell away from each other, then you should just do that; if one of you wants an IBAN and the other does not, then in my experience this means that the one who wants the IBAN intends to use the IBAN as protection against sanctions for disruptive editing. I am not implying that the latter is the case, mind you; I would need to hear your response to the advice I am giving you, and ScrapIronIV's opinion on the matter, first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I was acting as if one was imposed already. I did not mention or "stalk" the editor in question, until I did the former here on this page. The user reverted an edit I made in my userspace, which bothered me, but as long as I am able to keep reverting him myself, I suppose an IBAN is unnecessary. I hope the IBAN policy can be re-written in the future to make it more effective. Thanks, anyway. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Then you should wait for this thread, which is already too bloated for any serious outside input, to get archived, see if the problem continues, and if it does then request a one-way sanction against them. Please always bear in mind this simple rule: IBANs suck, and unless you have a really, really good reason for doing so, never request that one be placed on you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, don't wait. Just re-archive it yourself, since you removed it from the archive and the only one to respond since was me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Couple of thoughts. User:ScrapIronIV, this edit to Lord Laitinen's userspace is just petty and disruptive, and in my view if you do something like that again your should get blocked to prevent further disruption. Do you hear that this was very bad judgement on your part? And User:Lord Laitinen I do not see the value to the community of the userbox that ScrapIronIV vandalized, and I question the wisdom of posting that level of personal information about yourself in Wikipedia. You should take that down as userpages are not a personal webhosts per WP:USERPAGE and if I were you I would have that revdelled to protect your privacy. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog and ScrapIronIV: I agree about removing that user sub-page, and will request to have it deleted soon. It does not really serve a purpose anymore, as anyone can see the photos in the Kenosha article. However, it was still wrong for the user in question to have committed a bad faith edit, which I can confidently say I have never intentionally and thoughtfully done Wikipedia at any time. I ask that you leave me be (I shall do the same), and if not, I will ask Jytdog to ban or block you. I mean not to threaten or coerce you to "attack" me further, I am simply telling you that I am sick of being bothered and bullied by you, and will not stand for it any longer. I truly hope this conflict ends here today, and after a 24-hour response period passes, I will re-archive this entry. Thank you, happy editing, go with God. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's great that you will get rid of that page. Per your promise to disengage from the other user, it does you no good to be referring to what they did. You brought it here now let us deal with it. The best thing for each of you and the community is to steer clear of each other. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur, and I thank you once again. I will be in touch if any serious situation arises. ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

IP's promotion of "Freddy Maguire"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP, User talk:119.224.85.251 has made this edit [29] about Freddy Maguire. However, after reverting his edit, this IP seems to have said on my user talk saying I will receive a "strongly worded letter", which seems to be a euphemism for a legal threat. This is the diff of the message on my talk page: [30]. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I have dropped a note on their talk page, telling them they are editing in the wrong place and will have better luck submitting via WP:AFC. I don't fancy their chances of creating something that doesn't get deleted per A7 / G11, but it will at least stop them getting blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

A "strongly worded letter" is not a euphemism for a legal threat. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StronglyWordedLetter

It is a trope that means something like: "I can't really do anything about it except express my displeasure".

Example:

Hooligan: "I am gonna kick ur face in!"

Nerd: "If you touch me, I will... ehm... send you a Strongly Worded Letter!"

This phrase has turned into a meme. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

If you do receive a legal threat then please report it here so the IP can be blocked per WP:NLT, but for now I think this can be closed.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bizarre happenings at Marcus & Martinus

For the last 24 hours this article has been repeatedly vandalised by a series of IPs and red-linked SPAs to produce this nonsense, which is arguably also a serious BLP violation in addition to being a blatant hoax. It needs more eyes. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Or semi protection. That should work equally well, don't you think? :) TomStar81 (Talk) 09:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Tom! I wasn't sure how long the vandalism had to go on for to list it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and thought this might be faster. And... it was :) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Voceditenore: Your welcome. Also, as an FYI, you can post at the request for page protection page as soon as it becomes obvious that this is not a case of drive by vandalism. Alternatively, you can post here as well to get a quicker reaction if its warranted. Since this is a biography articles the rules are a little different owing to the need to protect the article from potentially damaging information, so we admins have a somewhat free-er hand when playing to protect these articles. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated incivility and personal attacks from User:Beyond My Ken

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all. Over the last couple of days, BMK has directed incredibly uncivil and attacking comments at me both on enwiki and meta. Most recently here at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stemoc, where he states that I do not have the necessary abilities to form a coherent opinion and that I am incompetent (more on meta at m:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Stop feeding the trolls). I would like this to stop; while I am used to being attacked by long-term trolls and the like, such as an edit to my userpage today by this account, I generally prefer to be able to participate in regular discussions without such treatment. To be clear: I am not concerned with the fact that he disagrees with me, nor that he obviously plans to oppose my steward confirmation in 2017 - those confirmations only register opinions on how I perform as a steward, and he has provided no evidence regarding any sub-standard performance by myself in that role. But I would like him to at least someone follow WP:CIVIL when he is directing comments towards me.

This is not new behaviour for him either. A quick look through his contributions shows many comments that lack basic decorum and civility, directed at any number of other editors. I can post further diffs if needed, but I expect this is well-known. I also don't want him blocked, because he does a lot of good content work and I'm not trying to stop that. But I would prefer it if I could participate in future discussions without unfounded attacks on my competence and character. Of course, if he has any actual evidence of misuse of my steward bit, I would be glad to hear it. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• This looks like a squabble to me. Ajraddatz, when you cast aspersions on call a very long-term and very experienced editor a "glorified troll", especially if you are or aspire to be a WMF admin/functionary/official, you're going to get blowback in the form of disagreement and probably a squabble. That's what this is. There's no policy against squabbles and I don't see this as incivility or personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC); edited 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  I have never called him a glorified troll. I have asked that he keep his comments civil. Further, a personal attack is defined as "Making of an abusive remark on or relating to somebody's person instead of providing evidence" according to wiktionary:personal attack; that is clearly what is happening here. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"I have never called him a glorified troll." I misread that, then (and have corrected my statement now). This still looks like a run-of-the-mill [reactive] squabble to me rather than incivility or personal attacks. Softlavender (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I need to re-evaluate my role in it then. Thanks for the opinion, and I am withdrawing this. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The first shot was fired by Ajraddatz: "This seems like harassment of Stemoc by BMK, after Stemoc called him a troll on AN a couple of days ago." (diff). Ajraddatz then added the clueless "keep per above obviously" for this revision of User:Stemoc. It looks like the MfD has been derailed, but for the future there is a difference between a user expressing support for something and the page in question. It is obvious polemic, although people seem to think it is in support of Trump whereas I would have regarded it as a parody. At any rate, it is not reasonable to assert that BMK performed harassment then complain at ANI about pushback. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  It does look like that. Stemoc called him a troll, he responds by nominating Stemoc's userpage for deletion. But you're right that I am not sure, so I said that it looks like it. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another VoteX sock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

86.28.195.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Vote (X) for Change. Could someone do the honours? Thanks. Incidentally, is ANI the best place for this sort of report? It's not obvious vandalism, so AIV seems inappropriate. Tevildo (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this person do? Change calendar related stuff? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

On the reference desks, formal trolling in the old USENET sense - that is, posting deliberately provocative and inaccurate material with the intention of causing a disturbance. Tevildo (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I was answering the question. I believe that's the point of the refdesk? I can't help you don't like the answer. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Will someone actually do an IP check?! I am not a sock. Just because the reported presumably disagrees ideologically with me, is not reason for a block. 86.28.195.109 (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Alif kha has been making personal attacks at CAPTAIN RAJU's page. Please block. Special:Contributions/Alif_kha. I don't know if Revdel is needed in this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Rambling Man's warring with editors, including Calidum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This administrator keeps warring with Calidum to show his superiority to others. He changed from "posted" to "pull blurb" over and over; he reverted one of my edits. Or maybe the fault is Calidum, but TRM is also responsible. --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "superiority" just English language. It is typical to post notices at ITN in the heading to garner attention. Calidum has misunderstood that, as has Ho. Move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Boomerang for bringing this frivolous complaint to ANI. Absolutely no proof of edit warring here.--WaltCip (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What about [37][38][39]? Frivolous? --George Ho (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Second frivolous complaint in quick succession. I'm close to lodging a real complaint. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man and Calidum: Knock it off with the edit warring. Both of you are experienced editors and should know better. Calidum, stop making personal attacks. That's uncalled for. @WaltCip: George Ho provided diffs with his initial report. Let's not inflame the situation. Mike V • Talk 21:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, just find a hobby you lot. This is nothing, I couldn't care less that Calidum called me a dick, I couldn't care less that he doesn't understand how ITN headers work. However, I could care that Ho keeps on keeping on until he thinks he can get me and that's too much. Time to stop Georgie boy, I'm sick of it. If you continue, I'll see you back here for a ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, Mike V; the issue is probably resolved. Nevertheless, that doesn't leave both off the hook yet, does it? George Ho (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No, George, that's right, keep sniffing for blood. What is your purpose here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

And please, when someone can be bothered to action this, please go to ITN and assess consensus on the Gordie posting which now has a strong consensus to pull, I mean Really Strong. Thanks all, bar Ho. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of the merit of the complaint, an accused is hardly the most objective judge of it. Defending oneself is one thing. Using bullying, intimidation, threats, and insult-just-short-of-personal-attack is quite another. I strongly object to these tactics, and to the community's tolerance (and even encouragement) of them. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

About whom are you talking, Mandruss: me or TRM? George Ho (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

TRM. Sorry, I thought that was obvious enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I second with Mandruss. All of these attacks are immature and childish. Feeling compelled to reply to every comment Ho makes is clearly a child's work at play. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So will there be action against TRM, is admonishment enough, or can we do nothing about it? George Ho (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

TRM is probably within the letter of policy and behavioral guidelines, so no sanction is likely. He has been around long enough to know exactly where the line is and what he can probably get away with. Many, many editors know the difference between the letter and the spirit, that acceptable behavior cannot be fully legislated any more than morality can be. It would be significant progress if more of them spoke up in situations like this, rather than staying silent for any of a number of reasons. Without that, TRM and others can continue to believe that a majority of the community supports their behavior. People need to take a stand, or they are just as much to blame for the results as the offenders themselves. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I mean, it crosses the line with civility and is has inched away the line of personal attacks, but considering everyone loses their cool I don't think a sanction is necessary. Unless this kind of behavior has happened before which should be addressed in my opinion, it's best we let this thread go as it is and wait. Ho, I would consider ignoring all comments by TRM. Don't provoke him of making more attacks like this. Just let him be as it will all go back to him. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There have been complaints about him, Mirela: January 2014 discussion, another January 2014 discussion December 2014 (somehow resolved(?) after very short block), discussion that went nowhere, failed proposal on him, August 2014 discussion, etc. But I'll post my past conflicts with him. George Ho (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In fairness, since you mentioned my ID here, the end of the three-way IBAN was graciously initiated by TRM, and we have had few troubles since the IBAN was lifted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

In fairness, too, he and I were okay with each other at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sam and Diane/archive2. Somehow, I didn't see how his behavior later then goes... erratic maybe? George Ho (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand it either. Real-life stresses bleeding into Wikipedia work, maybe? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried a complaint about him, which failed because I was accused of making a "drama" out of it. George Ho (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Now hold on. It failed as "Not something requiring admin tools." The closer never mentioned drama.. Moriori (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know whether I was "disruptive" when he scolded me for making numerous nominations at ITN without contributing to articles much. Also, he called my attempts to quit Wikipedia an unhelpful "pseudo-quit" because I didn't quit soon enough. About my quitting... that's a long story. George Ho (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't think it was that bad. Something must be done. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, no. Sick and tired of being dragged to drama boards for inconsequential bust-ups that don't impact anyone or anything apart from giving certain individuals ammo to go on the blood lust. Whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• TRM has been becoming very testy at ITN in the last few months. It's not to a point of anything that admins can enforce (it would have been a RFCU issue but that's gone) and the current situation should be a trout, but this is getting very commonplace there that makes it extremely hostile (particularly when it comes to stories with a potential national bias or favoring) and I feel that if this same pattern starts happening, something needs to be done if it should happen again. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• As an aside, I have pulled the article from ITN and have posted it to RD. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Is there any evidence that the viewing public would actually care about this little tempest? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't seen any viewer pushback, but it's important that we follow policy in these instances so that we can avoid any accusations of impropriety in editorial concerns. Nakon 00:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
      • More specifically, do you imagine that anyone outside the list of editors on that page really care? And you know what? You could fix this by getting rid of the "blurb" concept altogether and simply link to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I, as well as the rest of the regular ITN admins, have nothing against the posting of the subject. ITN admins are, by definition, neutral. If they have any stake in the articles, they must recuse all administrative actions regarding the subject. However, the posting to ITN must be submitted in regard to established policies. If a contributor supported the inclusion of the article, they must not include the article into ITN. This is a basic tenet of consensus on the project. I'm not in a position to suggest article view stats. Nakon 01:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Additionally, the "blurb" content can be reviewed by submitting a request on the ITN talk page. Thanks, Nakon 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
          • It all depends on how badly you would like to curb the bickering, which is usually either about notability, of course; and about whether to "blurb" or not, which serves no useful purpose, unless you think the perpetual arguments about it are useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Geez, can TRM get along with anybody? Seems like there's a "TRM causing problems" thread every few weeks, each time with a different editor. pbp 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If everybody's having similar problems with TRM, shall we take this to ARBCOM again? He's been the subject of one case before; we can make him the subject of another case again. What do you say? George Ho (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I say that, as one of the two parties involved in this complaint, and as the target of TRM's abusive behavior, you can't be objective here, and therefore not a good person to be making such a suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, as I gather you're multilingual, I'm not saying you're a bad person because you made the suggestion. Sometimes the language is inadequate to the task. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

George - as someone with enormous experience of your behaviour, and history, I just want to say this: No, drop it. It's not important, and if it is someone else will address it. Dropping the stick, remember? You're on a bad path here. Begoon ^talk 14:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please conclude this, or advance it to the joke forum so I can decide whether I need to retire (permanently, of course) or not? I really can't take the harassment from Ho any longer, I may need to take extra-Wikipedia actions. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're threatening to take "extra-Wikipedia actions", maybe you should retire, or at least cool your jets for awhile. I'm also dismayed that you don't take repeated claims to be more civil more seriously. pbp 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're the kid from Simple, right? You have an agenda as long as my arm and my leg to get me. I have no time for you. Please stick to the programme (program). I'm utterly dismayed that you (like one of the worms I've mentioned at ITN) turn up out of nowhere to hawk here at ANI, like a drama monger. Good for you, if that's what turns you on. I prefer to keep improving Wikipedia, and sometimes that demands actions that some people dislike. I would say I'm sorry about that, but I'm not. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There are ways that you could get as much done while being a lot more civil, and I am dismayed that you fail to realize it, even though I am hardly the first person to tell you that. A textbook example: there was no reason at all to call me a "kid". And since you bring up Simple Wikipedia, you also displayed a lack of cooperation and an arrogance there too that I tried to break you of, but you persisted, and now you're even worse here. You can't pawn this off on me or Ho or the myriad of other people whom you have disagreed with. A large chunk of the responsibility for the situation you find yourself in now rests solely with you. pbp 20:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're here or why you're contributing to this thread. If you wish to drag it all back to issues you had with your inability to edit collegiately at Simple Wikipedia, that's fine, although a little odd. I left that project with ten times the amount of quality content I found it. And you were blocked, several times, right? As for here, I have no "situation" at all. If you et al wish to pursue an agenda, please do so, but be advised that ANI isn't the appropriate venue, nor is the truly sad "she said he said" approach taken here. And for what it's worth, the original issue here has been resolved, in alignment with my edits. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

multiple editors are theatening to block me...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

...for following the rules. The guidelines clearly state that unsourced material can be deleted immediately, which is all I did. See the edits here. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant a block and I'm not at all happy with this treatment. User:Toddst1 and User:Hirolovesswords are the two issuing the inappropriate warnings. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The info seems to be pretty well sourced now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It is always best to try to find reliable sources and add them in support of unsourced content. It is best to remove content only when reliable sources cannot be found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

An exception would be made for contentious material. In this case, it was fairly unremarkable stuff but unsourced. The OP's real complaint seemed to be too much detailed info about this "goon", and he might have a point, but that's another matter for the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

To the 47 IP: You were not "following the rules". WP:Verifiability says: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." (emphasis added). Not must but may. If you think the material is blatantly false, then by all means delete it, but if you aren't sure, check for sources, or mark the material with a "citation needed" tag. ({{cn|date=June 2016}}) Deleting material which is probably accurate simply because it is unsourced is not a benefit to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material that is contentious or potentially defamatory can and should be removed. Like for example if it said, "His hobbies include running over squirrels." But there was nothing like that in the article, nothing defamatory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Not quite. Per WP:BLP, all contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately, "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." It doesn't have to be defamatory or even negative. The next argument, of course, is what "contentious" means. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Am I the only one that sees that this IP was edit warring, removing well sourced material?

1. [40]

2. [41]

3. [42]

with @Athomeinkobe: adding the Coup de grâce to the edit war

4. here [43]? Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. I removed unsourced material and attempted to move the sourced content to a new section. Are you one of those editors who sees an IP and immediately assumes bad faith? 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: my edit summaries were clear, yet they were completely and repeatedly disregarded by these editors. I made it crystal clear that I was abiding by what the guidelines state and I made it clear I wasn't interested in the conflict that was quickly and inexplicably building. A veteran editor has a responsibility to read an edit summary and join the pre-existing discussion before reverting and issuing threats to block. There needs to be accountability. I have never done anything resembling "unconstructive editing" and that can be easily verified. I played by the rules and received threats as a result, and that's the problem I have. I don't care about the article or the content anymore. Do these editors even have the authority to follow through on their threats to block? Pretty sure they don't. They assume bad faith, target people who edit anonymously, and issue inappropriate warnings. This is why newcomers quickly learn to avoid editing Wikipedia. These editors need to be censured at the very least. 47.55.192.66 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion does not take place in edit summaries. Editors do not get blocked "for following the rules." Conflict does not "inexplicably" build. Editors are under no obligation to discuss their edits prior to execution. What you keep describing as threats are templated warnings; I see no evidence of their misuse. Tiderolls 13:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple editors thought your (the OP's) edits were not constructive, yet you persisted. Your edit summaries weren't sufficient to explain your actions to these editors and instead of engaging on the article talk page, you barked at the individual editors on their talk pages. That will not work well going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like you ( ip: 47.55.192.66 ) were | removing sourced information. For example, that first paragraph you removed was sourced to the two sources named, sorry, I'm not buying it. KoshVorlon 15:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody else feels the need to close this as a content dispute? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poor behavior/POV by IP editor at Stop Islamization of America

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Stop Islamization of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2a02:a442:3456:0:5453:8e5a:f119:44d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Having difficulty with a POV-pushing IP editor at Stop Islamization of America. User started by removing sourced labels from the lead (extremist, Islamophobic, etc.) in these edits. I reverted, and the IP re-reverted. IP changes section header from "Ideology" (as covered by RS) to Criticisms here. I again reverted for removal of sourced material with POV intent. IP made a string of edits after discussion on my user talk page ([44]) which we're altogether unconstructive. I made a partial revert here (revert Criticism section header; added ISIL abbreviation; remove Facebook sentence and ref as it is not verified and does not conform with WP:SPS). I also started discussion on the article talk page regarding group's self-description ([45]). IP editor made recent revert here, which also included an unsourced block of text about the group's views.

Meanwhile, on my user talk page, the IP called me "personally invested" because I'm a Muslim (later corrected to conservative Leftist) and asked me to "put your personal feelings aside and try to keep Wikipedia as NPOV as possible." User confirmed decision that I'm a conservative Leftist and later called me a vandal.

Since it's not "clear vandalism", AIV seemed inappropriate. So here I am posting on ANI. Given the number of reverts, I will also be notifying the editor about 3RR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While typing this, more occurred. C.Fred reverted the IP editor. IP editor reverted again and made more edits. Refers to C.Fred and I as vandals again and comments on "PC academia" here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried to correct a very POV first paragraph ('extremist', 'islamophobic') with a more NPOV version.

Criticism of SIOA's ideology was labeled 'Ideology'. So I added a section 'Ideology' with a concise NPOV description of SIOA's ideology and moved the original 'Ideology' contents to 'Criticism'. Added the group's website as source.

In this, I was hindered by user User:EvergreenFir, who was deleting my content repeatedly and trying to impose his POV version. By lack of a better word, I choose 'vandalism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The organization's self-description hardly qualifies as neutral. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:SPS are fine if attributed. The problem is that the IP editor doesn't understand that NPOV means neutrally describing sources with due weight. Instead they think it means describing the topic neutrally, which in this case means using the language/terms of an Islamophobic group themselves and whitewashing them. Wikipedia describes what WP:RS say, preferably WP:SECONDARY ones. It does not try to cast an organization in a specific light. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

TracyMcClark reverted the IP again here. Any reversions by the IP after this are clear edit warring violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It is quoted as such: a self-description. The opinions of scholars, also, are quoted as such. As such, it is way more NPOV this way. You call SIOA Islamophobic. That indicates a very biased opinion about SIOA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:3456:0:5453:8E5A:F119:44D (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• IP Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Clear violation of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred. For the record, IP editor added POV statements here which ClueBot reverted. They then undid Tracy's edit here, which C.Fred reverted. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

...What the hell is a conservative leftist?142.105.159.60 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitrary Censorship

An editor by the name of General Ization is arbitrarily deleting my posts on an untrue article on Laszlo Csatary. He is not allowing me to respond to a challenge of proof. This is a biased and racist move on the part of General Ization. He obviously has something against Laszlo Csatary and his family and knows little or nothing about the situation. The article is defamatory and untrue and should be removed from Wikipedia. It lacks journalistic integrity and is equal to tabloid trash. Get generalization off this article please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.150.36.88 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 June 2016‎

The edits that were removed do not have any sources to back up their content. This is something that will require being discussed on the talk page of the article. Also, claiming the user has something again the subject, and especially calling them racist is a personal attack and should not be done. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

In fairness to the IP, there are sources - and they are already listed in the article, but not presented in the way the IP wants them to be presented.

The IP seems to want the article to state unequivocally that the subject is innocent of all crime; their argument being that the Budapest higher court suspended his case on 8 July 2013 (already stated and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", but currently qualified showing reasons they were suspended), and because a book was published in 2014 that claims he was not physically located where the crimes were committed (the book is also already presented and sourced in the "War-crimes indictment", stating the claim made in it by the author). The IP also appears to have a conflict of interest in the article, as they have claimed to be the son of the article subject. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP has not notified General Ization of this filing, so I have done so. GAB^gab 00:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Even though Generalizations Are Bad, GAB? BMK (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree, we ought to expunge all generalizations from the article. GAB^gab 00:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, GAB. Barek has accurately stated the basic history of this case, with the remainder available on the IP's Talk page. The IP has repeatedly engaged in the behavior described at WP:IDHT, in addition to personal attacks, legal threats and claims of censorship. I have considered that I could leave his statements in place on the article's Talk page, but each time they would require the same explanation in reply which I have provided here (in January 2016) and here (last night). The IP's repeated posting of the same claim -- that the self-published book already cited in the article proves that Csatary is innocent, and hence the article should state unequivocally that he is innocent -- is, of course, a violation of WP:NPOV, among other policies, and contributes nothing to the improvement of the article. General Ization ^Talk 00:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. - I am also the editor who located and contributed the citation that now exists in the article concerning the book, after the IP repeatedly inserted the claim without any source. General Ization ^Talk 00:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Request consideration of WP:ABAN. General Ization ^Talk 03:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG Give him some time to cool off.142.105.159.60 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This dispute has been ongoing (in slow motion, and with the OP using various IPs) since August 2013. "Some time to cool off" will not resolve the issue. General Ization ^Talk 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I had prodded an article here, and literally three hours before it was due to expire, it was deprodded by User:Kvng. Normally, I wouldn't care too much, but he has a series of edits that are nothing but last-minute deprods or removals of expired prods contrary to policy. Articles are unnecessarily having to go to AfD because of the actions of this editor (who maintains a running list of articles on his page that he has deprodded). I think the user's zeal is coming ahead of adherence to policy and adequate review of the articles prior to deprod. I went through only the June deprods and found the following situations:

• Deprod. 4.5 hours to go. Not that the nom matters, but DGG prodded this, and he's generally very lenient (in my view) about retaining content, and certainly has a grasp of notability policy.
• Deprod, five hours to go, went to AfD.
• This prod was removed 5 hours after expiration.
• As was this one, 3 hours after.
• Five hours remaining, unsourced since October of 2012.
• Prod expired, said it should be merged in edit comment, didn't execute the redirect.
• Expired prod removed, article sent to AfD.
• Removed prod, five hours to go]. Claimed "controversial due to sources" when there were all of two, and the band certainly didn't meet WP:NBAND.
• Removed prod, five hours to go. Prodder indicated that there was heavy COI, and whether or not that is the case, perusal of the sources shows a lot of reliance on WP:SPS and non-independent sources.
• Removed expired prod, article unsourced since 2011.
• Removed prod, four hours left, claimed notability, but it's actually a really good case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as the subject is Marissa Mayer's husband, and all the sources are from articles about her.
• One day left, no explanation given, sent ot AfD by Lemongirl, another editor who has a good grasp of policy.
• Removed expired PROD, article has been unsourced since 2007.
• Removed expired PROD, said to consider merge in edit comment, did nothing.

Discussions have been had several times on his talk page, all instigated by different editors:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Lots_of_deprods_with_almost_no_improvements
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#DEPROD_rationale
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#ExpoMarketing
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Please_stop_2
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kvng#Team_H2politO_deprodding

and in every case those editors have taken issue with the indiscriminate deprodding going on. So it isn't just me, and it isn't a new or small issue.

My list above was limited to deprods in the first 12 days of June - I didn't go back further, but this should be enough to indicate the extent of the issue. There were 15 articles on the list, but only 2 were unambiguously good removals (and were deprodded well in advance of the PROD deadline). Personal views aside, the role of a deprod patroller is to act in accordance with policy, not execute drive-by removals on every article he looks at, which is exactly what is happening here. The extent of the patrol contribs shows there is not a single article which the user actually patrolled that did not have its prod removed. Policy states that when a PROD has expired, the article should be deleted, not kept. Therefore, I would like this user removed from PROD patrolling, and his deprods reviewed, because he clearly cannot edit within the confines of policy. MSJapan (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This is the policy: Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Objecting. What part is being broken? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The instances where no explanation was given contravenes #1. Also, don't minimize the problem by claiming it's restricted to a subsection of policy. There is no reason to de-tag a completed PROD - at that point it is in the administrators' court. Moreover, a lot of the issue is timing; this is not being done on day 1, 2, 3 or even 4; it's being done at T minus 5 hours or less, or after the prod has expired, in addition to the poor rationales. MSJapan (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

My WP:PRODPATROLLING has been discussed at length at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms. What specific policy is it that you believe I have violated? I was not aware that there was anything prohibiting or discouraging deprodding after 7 days. ~Kvng (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, can you explain why you de-prodded Malayan Hymn with no rationale for doing so - an article that was not only unsourced but had been for nine years? Or DXJR - still unsourced. There are other examples above. De-prodding unsourced articles with no reason just creates work for everyone else. I would at least expect a detailed rationale for doing so, "probably notable" and similar is not enough. Laura Jamieson (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added my reason to the talk page. There is actually no obligation to provide a reason when deprodding though it is my personal policy to always do so. Sorry about the omission. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or contribute to the discussion I linked to above with any other concerns. ~Kvng (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no obligation to - but if you're de-prodding something that is very possibly non-notable, or is unsourced, it's a really good idea. Here's another example - Pokemon Plush Community. Obviously non-notable, unsourced web forum. Your rationale was "potentially controversial immediate prod of new article not meeting speedy deletion criteria". It actually could have been speedy deleted, and it should have been. I appreciate that a lot of your deprods are redirects of non-notable music articles (quite correct too) but it does appear you need to be more careful. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

With regards to Pokemon Plush Community, you might find useful background at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Prompt_prods_of_new_pages_by_new_editors. I felt it potentially controversial to WP:BITE with a PROD within minutes of article creation. To my surprise, I've since learned that there is a clear consensus at WP:NPP this is routine and accepted practice. You won't see me doing any more deprodding using that rationale. ~Kvng (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's fairly standard for people to look at Prods at the last minute: for one thing, the obvious place to start is the top of the list, & for another, that's when it's urgent to contest anything that one wishes to contest. It would however be nice if we had an automatic way of notify people their Prod has been removed, so they can decide if they want to go the AfD. The individual Prod logs are helpful, but if one does a lot, that makes another place to check -- I know I rarely have a chance to check mine. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) .

Why not watchlist your proposed deletions? ~Kvng (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Or PROD log related changes (prod-specific watchlist, basically) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If I decided to remove all prod tags as soon as they were added to articles, I don't think saying "but WP:PROD doesn't require an explanation" would be sufficient to protect me from sanction. So it's not true that there cannot be any objection to problematic deprodding. After all, for prod to do what it was intended to do, it has to be a functional process. Now, I'm not saying at all that Kvng's behavior is even close to such an extreme, but the many complaints/objections/concerns should beg the question of at what point intervention makes sense? If Kvng is the only time this has come up, it might make sense to hash out here at ANI, but it might also make sense to take this as an impetus to add something to WP:PROD including a line about e.g. "community confidence in an editor's judgment with regard to [proposed] deletion" or "a pattern of deprods the community finds to be excessive or indiscriminate" or the like. There seems to be strong consensus for a low bar to deprodding (myself included), so it would have to be very careful wording indeed, but would need to allow for intervention, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And in yet another instance of policy ignorance, Kvng is now trying to incorporate talk page discussion started as a result of the AfD notice into an AfD, by pointing to the talk page of the paid editor who created the article and who is now blocked. MSJapan (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to learn. I was trying to be helpful. I didn't realize a paid editor was involved. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

An Editor Who Does Not Like PROD

I agree strongly with the comments of User:Rhododendrites in that we need to hash this out as a policy matter.

I can see that we have here an editor who dislikes proposed deletion. There has been a recent discussion at New Page Patrol talk in which User:Kvng objected to the prompt PRODding of submissions by new editors, arguing that this was biting the newcomers. Kvng preferred to tag proddable submissions by new editors with smiley faces, give them welcome messages, and offer gentle encouragement. No one objected to welcoming them. There were questions about the impact of leaving the proddable articles in mainspace. This discussion resulted in a suggestion that inadequate new articles be moved to draft space. This was discussed at the Idea Lab and at the Articles for Creation talk page, and there was pushback at both. However, it now appears that Kvng dislikes PRODs in general. Aside from the merits (about which there was argument) against prompt prodding of submissions by new editors, it appears that they don’t like proposed deletion.

There is no rule against a single editor removing a PROD tag a few hours before it is scheduled to expire. PROD is intended for uncontroversial deletions, and PROD tag may, in accordance with the letter of the law, be removed for any reason or for no reason, the removal of the tag being itself evidence of controversy. That is, the conduct in question is consistent with the letter of the law. The questions are whether this editor is pushing the letter of the law in a way that violates the spirit of the law, and whether it is appropriate in Wikipedia to sanction an editor for conduct that is within the letter of the law. (Ignore All Rules is normally used to justify an action that advances the encyclopedia, not to sanction an editor.)

I would like to hear an explanation from Kvng, but, at the same time, I don’t think that there is a wrong that justifies administrative action, and so I would also like to hear an explanation of why Kvng’s behavior should be sanctioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it is unfair to accuse me of blanket dislike of PROD. I dislike the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions including cases where there is a reasonable alternative to deletion. I have significant WP:AFD experience so I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means. I believe WP:PRODPATROL serves an important function and apparently I am the most active member of this semi-active project. I don't believe I am violating either the spirit or letter of PROD policy. Before deprodding I do a careful review. I always have a specific reason for deprodding. In certain cases, I do make improvements to the articles I deprod but with a couple of dozen of these to review per day, my ability to do that is somewhat limited. I have listened to and been responsive to complaints and have changed my behavior in response to consensus and reasonable and specific requests. I do dislike the way new editors are WP:BITEN by PROD at WP:NPP but there is a consensus otherwise regarding this behavior and I respect that. ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Of the 15 cases I noted above, 7 of them were removals of expired prods. That is almost half of the entire list. I don't feel like going through the 500+ articles on Kvng's deprod list, but considering there are 400 deprodded articles in a two-month span, if 200 of those are expired prods, that is not inconsiderable. I would also note that of the three deprods in February 2016, 2 were deleted at AfD subsequently. The third should have been sent, but wasn't until I just did, so that won't count yet. The rest of the monthly lists also exhibit several subsequent AfD deletions, which also shows that the deprod was not appropriate.

As there is nothing in the PROD policy that explicitly permits removal of expired PRODS by non-admins, this is definitely a process violation. I've PRODded plenty of things here, and only once prior to this incident (in a decade of editing) have I ever run into an editor removing expired PRODs. I might simply be lucky, but the template precludes tthe behavior if one reads it. Wikilawyering that it's not explicitly stated doesn't make it permissible.

If, as you say, "Kvng doesn't like PROD", then Kvng is not an appropriate neutral reviewer. Therefore, he should not be patrolling PRODs, and I don't think he is simply going to stop because he is asked. Six discussions on his talk page and one on the PROD talk (as linked above) in the span of a month or so failed to cause either an acknowledgement of the problem (as seen by multiple parties), or a change in the behavior (as evidenced by its continuance). Therefore, it would seem that sanctions are necessary to cause the change, since as presented, this is textbook "what is ANI for?".

Perhaps most importantly, this pattern of behavior renders the entire PROD process irrelevant, and as a process meant to lighten the load at AfD (especially since participation there is significantly lower than in the past), PROD has to work. It is a fairly fundamental part of Wikipedia's functioning, and editors cannot be permitted to interfere with that unilaterally. MSJapan (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For anyone interested, I do keep open records of what I have deprodded, whether it subsequently goes to AfD and the result there. My assessment is that I deprod about a quarter of the proposals I review. The vast majority of my deprods to not go to AfD. Of those that do, a good percentage are kept and WP:SNOW deletes happen only in the rare cases where I find I was mistaken (and I promptly contribute a Delete !vote). ~Kvng (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As an example of a further part of the problem, in the case of Ali Ahmad Fayyad, Kvng provided three sources on the talk page, two of which were to HighBeam (and thus not accessible to anyone without access), and placed none of them into the article. While it is not necessary for a deprodder to improve an article, when he or she is one of the few who has access to a source and bases their decision on that, it should be incumbent on the deprodder to add the material to back up the decision, especially because no one else can assess the source. What's to stop anyone from pasting a random set of paywall links into any article talk to "assert its notability"? MSJapan (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Many others have requested that I improve the articles that I deprod. Given the number of PRODs I review, I do not consider this a reasonable request. The compromise I agreed to was that if I deprod based on sources I find, that I add them to the article or the article's talk page. I am not aware of any issue using HighBeam sourcing. If you want access to the full content, visit the WP:LIBRARY and sign up for your own free account. ~Kvng (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Your provision of Highbeam links was in violation of the required citation format at WP:Highbeam, particularly, no bare URLS, and provide original citations. You simply cannot expect other people to chase after your citations by requesting access. MSJapan (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Based on the extensive discussion at WT:NPP with this editor I have the uncomfortable feeling this was POINTY behavior. If no one else had objected to the prods and they DePRODed with no explanation and no intention to go back and handle the problems with those articles then a simple, clear statement not to do so any more should be enough. If they continue this behavior then sanctions are in order. Jbh^Talk 22:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to see WP:NPP behavior more in line with my reading of NPP policy, specifically WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE. It took discussion for me to understand how NPP really works and I would prefer things were different and I did try to make a case for changing. The consensus is clear and I respect that and I thank you for your patience. A batch of deprods of flawed articles from new editors may have looked WP:POINTY but that was before the NPP discussions. I am truly concerned about WP:BITE and do try to avoid the lure of theory and other pointy behavior. I have been on WP a long time and have a clean record. Please extend some good faith to me. ~Kvng (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

If the bulk of these were from before the discussion we had at NPP then I do apologize. However, after that discussion I would think that you should have a firmer understanding of why articles are PRODDed at NPP and would not then go on to do dePRODs which undercut that quality control purpose about which consensus was clear. Jbh^Talk 23:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Response to User:Kvng - above you wrote that you object to the use of PROD for potentially controversial deletions. The reason why PRODs sit for a while, is exactly to give people who actually care about the article time to contest it; this was carefully thought out by the community. What we the community has decided is that a PROD that has expired without being contested exactly means that deletion is not controversial. So that is not a valid basis for removing an expired PROD - will you please confirm that you won't remove them anymore? As to your removing PRODs when they are still pending, are you hearing the feedback that your judgement is off here? Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we have the right stakeholders here. I've started a discussion on this at Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_after_7_days ~Kvng (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng your behavior is under discussion here and your removing expired PRODs is definitely outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior here, and the feedback you are getting is that your judgement is off. Again, will you agree to stop removing expired PRODs and do you hear the feedback you are getting? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in deprodding expired proposals. There's potential good in that it relieves some administrative backlog evaluating these proposals - remember administrators are supposed to evaluate, not just delete expired PRODS. Anyway, there's no clear policy statement about this so I have opened a discussion to resolve this and will happily adhere to whatever is worked out there. ~Kvng (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(big edit conflict -- typed this up an hour ago but didn't save) I think I have a good feel for what "potentially controversial" means - But you have several other editors challenging you on this now. Reaffirming your own self-confidence doesn't instill confidence in others (just the opposite).

I have only one example that's ready-to-mind because it was the one I was involved with: ExpoMarketing. I spent time analyzing the sources, looking for others, etc. before prodding, then you decided it was controversial because it looked like it cited sources (they were all press releases/primary) and because of the existence of ghits. Granted, you went on to !vote delete at the subsequent AfD, but clearly it just wasted both of our time for it to have to go through AfD.

I'll reiterate that I don't think there's a sanction needed here, but it would behoove you, I think, to consider that you may have a looser definition of "controversial" than others. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I make mistakes but I try to correct quickly if it is clear that I am wrong. Sorry that I wasted your time. There has actually been at least one case where I cast an initial delete !vote on an article I deproded and the AfD result turns out to be keep. The extra steps and checks and balances can be useful. ~Kvng (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Close with no action taken: There's no policy or guideline to prevent Kvng from doing what he's doing, and most of the complaint seems to be coming from a single editor who just doesn't like it. @MSJapan:, perhaps you should ask that WP:PROD be reworded to discourage removal of expired PRODs. pbp 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Strongly disagree; I am heading toward making proposing sanctions, depending on how Kvng responds. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like 5-6 people raising objections in this thread alone (nevermind the others). Granted, some of us have said sanctions probably aren't needed, but it's obviously not one editor who "just doesn't like it". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

As a result of the discussion Kvng opened on PROD, I have the following, from the third paragraph of the PROD page: "A nominated article is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved admin, who reviews the article and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag." KVNG is not an ininvolved admin, so he should not be removing those tags, period. By doing so, he is violating a clearly stated policy, and as a PROD patroller, he should know the policy. He does not. MSJapan (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything you quoted prohibiting removal of the tag after 7 days. To be clear, I don't make a habit of this. It happened recently because I was away from WP for a few days. Instead of trying to nail me, please join the new discussion I have started to try improve/clarify the policy. It shouldn't take long. ~Kvng (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) - I have to doubt your interpretation, MSJapan. WP:DEPROD does not lack clarity & suggests anyone can remove the tag. Perhaps you might continue reading below P3. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I did, so let me drop another line in here. Step 3 of the prod process states: "The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator seven days after nomination (or any time after seven days that an administrator reviews the article). It may be undeleted upon request. If the reviewing administrator does not agree with the deletion they may remove the PROD tag instead of deleting the article." Emphasis mine, but the policy requires an admin review after seven days have passed, not unilateral removal because an admin hasn't reviewed it yet. MSJapan (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It would be overly WP:BUREAU to say that for the first 7 days anyone can remove a prod, then between day 7 and review by an admin, only an admin can remove it, but then once deleted, anyone can request a WP:REFUND if they object after deletion. Basically the 7 days is to give time for objections, if anyone objects, even after deletion, the prod is cancelled, and the article must be send to AfD before deletion. An admin backlog just means there is more time to object before the initial deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is not about someone violating policy, but a disagreement with the policy. I think that rather than ANI this would be better resolved by proposing a change to policy to address the perceived flaws. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I have started that discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• The number of bluelinks under User:Kvng/Deprod demonstrates that USer:Kvng deprods are justified. The gist of the complaint here reads to me as a complaint asserting that if the Prod patrollers can't keep up with the Prodders than the Prod patrollers should shut up. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree. Everything I listed was bluelinked, some of it should have been deleted, and some of what was not deleted is unsourced for almost a decade. The existence of bluelinks might actually be a really good indicator that no one is bothering with those articles, and that they should have been left to be deleted. Also, you seem to be insinuating that the prodders are deletionists and the prod patrollers are inclusionists who exist to exclusively rescue articles from being prodded. That's not what prod patrollers do, by your own rules. Prod patrollers are supposed to assess articles, not wage war against the deletionists for the sake of keeping unencyclopedic material on the encyclopedia because it exists. Perhaps a rephrase is in order? MSJapan (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor neglect is not a valid reason for deletion. It is true that a good proportion of the bluelinks in my prod log are now redirects. Some of this is my own doing as I do a lot of bold redirects and merges as part of my patrolling activities. This is something that prodders need to consider doing WP:BEFORE proposing for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• I propose that Kvng be TBANed from removing PROD tags for one month which should be enough time to get clarify on the policy. Their refusal to acknowledge a) the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good and b) that removing expired PROD tags frustrates the process and to acknowledge the feedback from the community that their judgement in removing PRODs is not good means that they should not be PROD patrolling; this is going to cause continued disruption if they continue to do it. They can of course participate in discussions about changing PROD. If after they return their de-PRODs are again found problematic the TBAN can be made permanent. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

Oppose- The PROD policy specifically allows anyone to remove the PROD as long is it is present. See the third paragraph of the policy where it says, "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." -- GB fan 00:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Get the policy sorted out. It's not clear to me that Kvng has broken either the spirit or letter of current policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at least for now. In my opinion Kvng is complying with WP:PROD policy. A prod can be challenged/removed at any time, and there is no obligation under policy to fix an article after challenging a prod. Based on Kvng's prod challenge log, (which is a great practice) we can see that a substantial majority of the challenges don't end up with deletion, though a fair number do end up getting redirected. Since Kvng is clearly acting in good faith, and even inviting scrutiny, I oppose any topic ban. If we want to change policy to create additional obligations when challenging a prod, or want to add additional obligations specifically for prolific prod challengers, that would be fine, but until then, I think Kvng is on the right side of existing policy. Monty₈₄₅ 00:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support - Step 3 of the PROD procedure states plainly that after 7 days, an uninvolved admin must review the article to decide whether to delete it, and the template itself states clearly that an article may be deleted after seven days if the PROD has been in place that long. To claim that, as a PROD patroller, one is not aware of how the process works or what the templates say is problematic, and indicates an inability to exercise judgment on the use of the tools. MSJapan (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And the third paragraph of the lead says "The first objection kills the PROD, and anyone may object as long as the PROD tag is present." The instructions do not have every nuance of the process. Anyone can remove the PROD at any time even if it has expired. -- GB fan 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec)You appear to be selectively quoting, and misquoting, a section of WP:PROD. Clearly views on 'the process' differ, and Kvng can be forgiven for taking a different view than you do. These, and especially your off-colour Highbeam comments, above, suggest you have an animus towards Kvng which I find unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - those of you opposing here are not taking into account the (formerly) second and really key part of the reasoning - namely that their judgement has been found sorely wanting here. Flipping the order above to make that more clear. Jytdog (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Kind of you to tell us what we're not taking into account. tbh, I'm finding MSJapan's judgement more concerning that Kvng's. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I can see an argument to be made that when a frequent prod challenger wants to challenge a prod, that they should fix any deletion worthy problems with the article. It may be reasonable for us to ask that Kvng take more steps to fix the articles when challenging prods in light of the frequency with which they do so. (I'm somewhat on the fence on that question) However as policy does not require this, I don't think it is reasonable for us to place such a restriction unless we come to a consensus and then that consensus is not respected. Based on what I'm seeing so far, I have no reason to believe Kvng wouldn't respect it, and so per WP:AGF any type of actual restriction would be premature. Monty₈₄₅ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Monty845. pbp 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is the first, as far as I know, that the matter has been brought to to Kvng and there is ambiguity in the PROD rules. I hope they do take on board that dePRODs should have articulable reasons and I would request that they at least notify the editor who originally placed the PROD in case they have not watch listed it. This will guarentee at lease someone will consider whether the article needs to go to AfD.

  In addition I would like to thank Kvng for keeping a dePROD log. That is a good way to be able to track judgement over time and is also a great way to allow others to review your dePRODS. I wish more editors would do things like that. Jbh^Talk 01:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose I have not seen it demonstrated that this is called for. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 02:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Back on track

I think we're losing sight of the fact that what is at issue is editorial judgment. In an attempt to get back to focusing on that, I'm going to provide two more examples in addition to the diffs provided above.

Kvng deprodded Activity centre in March 2016. It was well within the 7-day period, but the deprod reason was "numerous incoming wikilinks indicate potential notability. poor sourcing is not a valid reason to delete." [46] I would like to have Kvng address on what basis incoming wikilinks assert notability.

Anyhow, I went through the article, and I AfDed it. Here's why: First of all, it was odd that the article was focused on Melbourne, Australia. Second of all, there were inconsistencies in the citations, which were a mix of wikied reflist-type stuff and bulleted citations. For that reason, someone templated it with the "unclear cites" template a few years ago. Long story short, there are a number of"[3]" notations inline. They are followed by wikied refs. However, none of the wikied refs are in the reflist, and nothing in the bulleted reflist is cited in the article. So it's an unsourced article that's a wall of text - someone was generous and claimed it was a citation format problem. Now, rf mismatch like that usually happens when somebody cuts and pastes directly from a source, but doesn't take the citations (usually a webpage or electronic thesis). I wasn't able to find the original, but that may be for several reasons. I then looked at the article history. It was heavily edited by an IP. I then looked at the creator's talk page and contribs. The author in question had had several articles speedied, and had received several warnings. In short, there were a lot of flags to show that this was not a good article, and one that should not have been deprodded, if due care had been taken.

But some might say that I "picked something from before the NPP discussion, and Kvng learned from it. Well, let's jump to May 28, 2016. Kvng deprodded Harry Rosman and the deprod reason was "WP:DEPROD consider merge to The_Purple_Gang#Cleaners_and_Dyers_War"(diff). Not only did Kvng not redirect it, the subject isn't named in the target, so if he had, it would have gone to RfD. The subject, by the way, is a textbook WP:BLP1E - he was a witness in the Purple gang trial, and that's all we know about him.

These articles are not improving the encyclopedia. One is copyvio, and one is based on a single news article. There is no real reason why an editor (such as myself) should need to spend the time to write an AfD nom to assess the issues in these articles, send it to AfD, wait at least a week for a response (if consensus is reached - I had an article out for a month with no consensus) while other editors go over it, have clerks take the time to relist if necessary, and finally have an admin delete it when it was basically set to be gone already with a minimum of effort. There may be another 200 or more articles just like this at a low estimate, built up over five months. The rest of the interaction with Kvng has gotten so far as to rewrite policy to condone his actions, and meanwhile, he's refusing to acknowledge the multitude of complaints noted not only as the convo diffs, but also as brought up in this ANI. MSJapan (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MSJapan: If anybody's off-track or off-base, it's you. The failure of the above proposal to sanction Kvng should have suggested to you to drop the matter entirely. But instead you're bludgeoning us with a wall of text. We get that you don't like his de-proddings. But we're not as upset about it as you are. pbp 04:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd be happy to respond to your concerns about specific DEPRODS but I don't think this is the right place. How about Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion#Deprod_criticisms? ~Kvng (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT you exhibit all over the talk page there makes it a pointless endeavor. Other editors have told you what I am telling you, and all you do is ratilnalize it away and do what you want. I'm not concerned with one or two deprods - I'm concerned about the fact that despite the various complaints made, talk threads opened, and everything else, between those two deprods, that you are still behaving in May and June the same way you were in March before those discussions took place. You have shown that you have not heeded the complaints of others by changing your behavior, and moreover, you would rather rewrite policy to condone it because it's "easier". The problem is that what you are doing is affecting core processes in this project, and that makes it a community problem. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I beleive I have been quite responsive and thoughtful about this

• I have rejected the requests to simply stop patrolling.
• I have rejected the requests to improve all articles I deprod.
• I have accepted the requests to always provide a deprod reason.
• I have accepted the request to provide links if derod is based on a search I've done.
• I have accepted the request to not deprod prompt deletion of good-faith but unpromising articles by new editors.
• I have accepted the request to boldly redirect unpromising articles with an obvious parent.
• I have accepted the request to not use incoming link count as a measure of potential notability (the example you give above is from back in March).
• I have kept open records of my deprod activity so I and others can assess what I'm doing and and I can improve my own performance.

I have also engaged openly in discussion about these activities and have attempted to improve policy where I find friction. Please do not accuse me of bad faith or disruptive editing. ~Kvng (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Both of the DEPRODS you mention here are good. I don't necessarily agree that multiple incoming links means the subject is notable, but I do see it as a possibility that it is controversial, so use of PROD is inappropriate. Suggesting that an article could be merged rather than deleted is appropriate and that makes use of PROD inappropriate. There is no lapse in judgement with these two DEPRODS. -- GB fan 11:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I won't comment on the first DEPROD, but I will on the second. If the article could be merged into another article without being deleted then why did Kvng not do so. Instead they DePRODed an article and left it for somebody else to someday come in an clear up the mess. I honestly don't think that its sufficient to just leave that task for somebody else to handle someday, especially if that somebody doesn't see the note on the talk page and just takes that article to AfD. I don't think any sanction is necessary against Kvng, that would be overkill by a long shot, especially since Kvng seems to be working in good faith. But I do think that the PROD policy needs an update. Just because it used to work, doesn't mean that it still does, status quo just isn't going to work. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

It would have been better if Kvng had performed the merge and redirect, I don't disagree with that. But since this discussion is about Kvng's editorial judgement, neither one of these two indicate any problems with their judgement. -- GB fan 11:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, let me get this straight. Someone tags an article for PROD. It goes 7 days with no one removing the tag. Then, once it's expired but (critically) before an admin reviews it, Kvng comes along and deprods it, sometimes improving it in the process or adding refs or whatever. Some of these removals are justified, as SmokeyJoe indicates above - they end up being useful and policy-compliant articles. Now are we seriously arguing that we should actually delete valid content (that could be restored instantly on request at WP:REFUND) because our overworked and understaffed admin corps didn't get to the expired prod before Kvng did? In what way, precisely, does that improve the project? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• That is exactly what is being proposed here at at WT:PROD. The proposal is to have admins take at least two actions, delete and undelete. At least one is also saying these refunded articles should be moved to draft space so that would take a third admin action of either moving without redirect or deleting the redirect after the move. -- GB fan 13:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out that discussion. Since we're adding workload for no benefit, perhaps we should also make a log of PRODs removed and deleted and undeleted, then put it somewhere that no one will read, code up some bots to keep it up to date, and have them ping the noticeboard when someone has the infernal gall to actually improve a fucking article rather than delete it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• So, we're only going to take into account admin workload are we? nobody cares about the (significant) workload dumped on the volunteers that now have to go from PROD to AfD and take hours/days/weeks of several peoples time (per AfD) because a multitude of PROD worthy articles are being DePRODed for no reason (not necessarily by one person, and not necessarily always, but most definitely on occasion). I have been involved in a couple AfD discussions, and they take hours and days to be resolved, occasionally even weeks. I re-iterate, Kvng has done nothing wrong here, they are acting according to what they believe is correct and are doing so by following policy. They've even expressed that they'd be willing to follow any changes to the policy and also mentioned that they already take further than necessary steps when dealing with DePRODing articles. Now, I am not an admin, but as far as I am aware, the time it takes to delete and undelete an article is considerably less than it takes to go from PROD (7 days at least) to AfD (Hours if SNOW, Days if mildly controversial but not SNOW, and about a week+ if controversial). Am I missing something here? in all seriousness, am I actually missing something here or are the above complaints legitimately ridiculous (mine included from this post). Mr rnddude (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

yep PRODland is a CFWOT where upside down logic remains supreme. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note: FWIW, User:MSJapan has announced his retirement as a result of fallout from this ANI, and from comments made by me and Kvng on AfDs he has started on PRODs Kvng declined. pbp 19:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to set the record straight, I've retired because of your vote comment here on this AfD and here. In short, I'm not going to volunteer my time to contribute to be contrib stalked with personal attacks on AfDs combined with obviously biased tag team voting especially when the one uninvolved editor who votes on the AfD agrees with my assessment and then, be met with outright bullying on my talk page with someone telling me what I'm allowed to do and not do here on Wikipedia or they're going to continue to harass my contribs. If the wrods alone aren't proof, run an edit compare; ever since Purplebackpack interjected himself into this thread from the TRM one above (where he was also accused of causing trouble), he's been following me all over Wikipedia, with absolutely no edit interactions before that point. In short, if I'm going to be followed everywhere, tag-team voted against with personal attacks just to contest AfDs, and then basically get told "leave this guy alone, and I'll leave you alone", that is not how this project works. It's a waste of my time to attempt to improve the encyclopedia when people are purposely sabotaging processes and bullying people to get their own way, so I'm not doing it anymore. It's that simple. MSJapan (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• @MSJapan: Don't try to make out like you're the victim in this. You've spilled more ink damning Kvng in this subthread alone than I've wasted on you on the entire project. You followed Kvng around to a helluvalot more places than I've followed you. Seriously, dude, you are one of the thinnest-skinned, hypocritical people I know on this project. pbp 02:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" comment

(Non-administrator comment) I feel the need to comment since I had one of my PRODs removed by Kvng with reasons I think insufficient (an AfD runs here). Not really unbiased, but considering my recommendation goes against my bias... Some red herrings here:

1. About removing expired PRODs - I wonder where it is written that this should not be done. I cannot find it in WP:PROD or elsewhere. If you want my opinion, it should be possible - the aim of PROD is to get uncontroversial deletions out of the way. The 7-days limit is to avoid a limbo of "will be deleted articles" while giving reasonable time for objections, not a magic number; if an objection comes 1 or 10 days after the deadline, it is still an objection. (Whether the objection turns out to be relevant or not is immaterial, we are talking about the timescales of the process.)
2. About "deprods like crazy" - well, I did not check the stats provided above, but 200 deprods/month does not seem such a high number to me. Assuming generous numbers of 5 min of investigation per prod (remember, this is not AfD, you just check obvious shortcomings)and a 10% deprod rate, it means a bit more than 16h/month - if Kvng spends a good fraction of their WP time doing prod patrol, it looks totally reasonable.

The only potentially actionable is issue would be disruptive editing in the form of massive incorrect prod-removal. While I feel that some of Kvng's deprods are a waste of time, I see that as a genuine disagreement with the philosophy of PROD, in particular the uncontroversial bit.

For instance if unnotable productX is created by User:productXsmaker (a common sight at page patrol), it is likely that the creator objects to the PROD, even if they do not remove the tag within seven days. My view in such a case is that prodding gives a chance to avoid the hassle of AfD even if it means shortcircuiting the newbies, because none familiar with the guidelines would !vote to keep; another view is that such a nomination is controversial from the start and hence should not be prodded.

Barring evidence from a former discussion or guideline page or whatever in favour of the former view, and former mention(s) of that to Kvng, I see no reason to sanction them. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I used to be a regular prod patroller and have deprodded hundreds too. Some of my deprods would get deleted at AfD, but that wasn't proof my deprod was wrong - prod is only for uncontroversial deletion and like Kvng I would deprod when I thought there was a chance it would survive an AfD or have a suitable merge target. I would improve some but not all the articles I deprodded. Deprodding after 7 days is also not an issue. Prod is meant to be light touch - easy come, easy go - and Kvng has agreed to give a rationale, so move on. Fences&Windows 19:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Forget technical rules; disruption is disruption. However, it's disruptive only if the articles are not prod-able. Nominate them at AfD, if nearly all of them are deleted, we can conclude that Kvng's views on notability or whatever are so off kilter that the community can request he refrain from engaging in Prod's and de-Prodding. If a significant number are kept, he's within bounds. If the OP wants to bolster the objection, send the 400 to afd and let's see whether your, or Kvng's, views on notability are correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I would consider deprodding to make a point to be disruptive and what Fences and windows describes gets close to that. I may have crossed the line a couple times as I was learning how to patrol. I think it best, as advised at WP:PRODPATROL, to avoid the lure of theory. ~Kvng (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You're insinuating I deprodded articles to disruptively prove a point, on the basis of zero evidence. I can't believe you're making an accusation like that in the middle of a debate in which you're being accused of exactly that. I've struck my comment, AN/I can hang you out to dry for all I care. Fences&Windows 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe you are reading WP:PROD policy correctly and would prevail in a policy debate. But I've received clear feedback that deprodding just because deletion is potentially controversial is not productive. Deprods should be potentially controversial and have a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. It is my impression that there are some mismatches between deletion policy and behavior and a consensus of editors is comfortable with that. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I do not believe that Kvng was accusing you of intentional disruption. Merely commenting that others in this AN/I thread have found that having articles you DePROD going to AfD to be disruptive. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

64.121.83.151 removing LGBT related info from many articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

64.121.83.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is removing a large amounts of well-sourced LGBT content with little or no justification. Seems like I don't like it Blocked five times previously for up to one year.

• Tiffany Darwish Removed unverified info sourced by two references that don't exist
• 19th GLAAD Media Awards Removed article with pro-LGBT bias
• Societal attitudes toward homosexuality removed section, written with obvious bias
• John R. Bradley Removal of book: Saudi Arabia Exposed: Inside a Kingdom in Crisis
• LGBT rights in Ghana Removal of source and content
• William R. King Removal of sources and content
• James Buchanan Removal of sources and content
• Irreligion in Saudi Arabia Addition of weasel words.
• LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia removed unsourced info Also removed sources - edit warrign
• LGBT in the Middle East Removed LGBT book from further reading section
• Religion in Saudi Arabia Added weasel words.

Many more as well. Jim1138 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Agree; one glance at their contributions shows they are a disruptive SPA removing valid cited information. Has a sizeable block log already. Needs a longterm (at least one year) soft block. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In Tiffany Darwish the mention of LGBT support was only sourced with two sources that no longer work. In LGBT in the Middle East, 19th Glad Media Awards, LGBT right in Saudi Arabia, and John R. Bradley that was a mistake on my part as I thought they went against Wikipedia: Point of View. Today after you told me to reread it I realized that they didn't actually go against the policy and I admit that was a misunderstanding on my part. For James Buchanan and William R King I was also mistaken in removing it but I thought that since it was debatable whether they were LGBT whether or not those sources should be included. Especially since James Buchanan was asexual so I thought the quote about him wanting female company without an actual relationship could have been related to him referring to his asexuality. I believe this was a misunderstanding from how I misunderstood the rules but I think this is a learning experience for me. I would hope you'd give me a warning as I am trying to make edits in good faith and unlike the past I have good intentions. 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see my explanation before making a full and fair decision 64.121.83.151 (talk) 05:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"I would hope you'd give me a warning" ... Jim1138 gave you three warnings before filing this ANI. Rather than take heed, you proceeded to argue with him instead. It's obvious from your repeated and longterm behavior over the past two years that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't arguing I was trying to understand why it was wrong and to add reasoning why I made the edits I made. I'm here to learn and try to be better at this. I am here to make good edits.64.121.83.151 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously still the blocked User:Jacobkennedy. Just block for block evasion and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Jacobkennedy has previously even posted an unblock appeal using this IP. No SPI needed here. Laura Jamieson (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also a static IP address so a long (or indefinite) block can be applied with no collateral damage. --Elektrik Fanne 11:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suspected antisemitic vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IP account 23.17.170.70 has made several edits which have been reverted as vandalism. These have consisted largely of inserting large and apparently irrelevant numbers of parentheses around words and names, which is reminiscent of the recent antisemitic practice of placing triple parentheses around names of people believed to be Jewish, in order to target them for harassment . See in particular this edit, in which such parentheses were placed around the names of, among others, Baruch Spinoza, Karl Marx and David Ricardo, but not others such as Adam Smith, Voltaire or Robespierre. There can be little doubt that the intention here was to mark out and stigmatise Jews, and it is essential that Wikipedia takes steps to prevent this without delay, in order to prevent this usage spreading over the whole project. Could anyone develop a filter to prevent such edits? And the IP responsible for this apparent first usage here should be sanctioned to prevent any more such dog-whistle racism. RolandR (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week. (The conduct is worth an indef, but it appears to be a dynamic IP.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Also someone might want to explain to the IP that Wikipedia's easy to use categories and lists provides far more opportunities for Jew-tagging biographies. Of course they might get upset when they realise editors have been at it for years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

My reading of the contribution history was that it was not a dynamic IP. Going back to their first edit it is the same pro-aryan nonsense. Based on that I have made it a 6 month block. See their first edit from August 2015: [47]. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 15:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No objection to that change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed that the IP address is static. --Elektrik Fanne 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated legal threats on S. S. Rajendran

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Legal threats:

• [48]
• [49]
• [50]

Arihant733 Says that they are the 'legal heir' to the subject. If they want to discuss their concerns they should do it here. They should be aware of WP:LEGAL which states that If you post a legal threat on Wikipedia, you are likely to be blocked. -NottNott|talk 18:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for making legal threats. However I think the content they were removing should be scrutinized to make sure it is up to our standards. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 18:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A hate group is attempting to brigade an RfC

A Manual of Style discussion regarding transgender people is currently being brigaded by an off-site hate group encouraging people to create accounts to "vote support". This group has been actively involved in doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence against trans people in the past, and they need to be cut off from attempting to use Wikipedia to further their agenda. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Noting, in passing, the pure unsullied and unalloyed irony of the fact that your own account was registered... on 10 June 2016 at 13:24. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Because my main account is linked to my real-life identity. My employer is listed on my main account's user page for crying out loud, and I don't want them getting death threats from this group. This group has targeted their opponents in real life before. Also bear in mind that I'm not !voting or offering my opinion in any way on the discussion. MarleneSwift (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be ironic if MarleneSwift issued a support/oppose !vote in the discussion, as that would be engaging in the practice he/she is expressing concern about. That is not the case, as far as I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
    • No, the irony is in the creating of accounts for extraneous purposes. And there you have it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with this report; if someone is scared enough to start a new account to notify us of what could well be a legitimate concern, we should thank them. I hope it's hot air in that thread. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather than trying to play whack-a-mole by reverting and blocking the new accounts, simply place a prominent note about the situation to alert the closing admin/editor to it. !Votes by newly registered SPAs should be disregarded in any numeric assessments of consensus. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That being said, if any of the new accounts do engage in "doxxing, harassing, and making threats of violence", this should be dealt with by immediate blocking and rev-del of the offending edits, and by notifying emergency@wikimedia.org should the situation be sufficiently extreme to warrant it. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment using an IP or a throw-away unlinked second account is becoming far too common. If there's something you object to, and cannot say so yourself because of whatever, then hope someone else objects to it (one person's objection rarely is sufficient for consensus, especially on an RfC). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Requesting block for myself

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An unconventional request? True, but it is necessary. I would like to request any administrator to topic ban me from ITN discussions. It is clear the new RD criteria are being pushed through without serious consultation or discussion and I want no part of it. Therefore I request to be banned from the ITN candidates page (WP:ITN/C), to formally show I am ceasing to help out with that part of the project. Fgf10 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to consider yourself "blocked" if that's what you want. The only person who will enforce this is you, however. Jonathunder (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I fully intent to do that, but I am formally requesting a WP:TBAN for myself for ITN/C. I do not believe this violates any rules? Fgf10 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove talk page access

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A blocked user has gone off. I think removing talk page access and hiding the offending slurs would be beneficial. Many thanks.- MrX 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Might want to link the user's name? But yeah, indef and remove access imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just doing that when you created an edit conflict. - MrX 21:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

"Just according to keikaku". Mwhahaha. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to leave this for NeilN to decide. The user reverted, probably realizing what an ass they were making of themselves. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I usually ignore attacks directed at me in the heat of the moment or otherwise. Bit concerned at the implied transphobia but hopefully we won't see any more of that.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • We won't, because I've reblocked indef with talk page access removed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive edits by 104.56.23.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP has, amongst other disruptive behaviors, persistently recreated articles that have been deleted by Afd (most of which were replaced by Redirects). The most recent 10 examples (excluding repeats/edit warring): [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. This editor is an SPA in the field of Longevity which is subject to AE and has been warned as such. The editor has also been previously blocked for evading a previous block. It is possible that they are a topic-banned editor. Apologies to Admins if this should be more appropriately dealt with under AE but the specific behavior of mass restoration of redirected articles seemed to me to be better dealt with here. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I restored the majority of them because they DIDN'T go to AfD. --104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note the IP is almost certainly the block-evading User:DN-boards1 (or one of his predecessors). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Horrifico/Archive especially the most recent filing of 30 April 2016. See also 104.56.23.57's block log. Surely these should be mass reverted to the redirects they were instead of the time-wasting bureaucracy that is resulting in things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Ringier. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a connection with Dn-boards1. I am his sister! This is meatpuppetry happening, not sockpuppetry. 104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that makes it perfectly acceptable then! WP:SISTER must apply eh ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't apply here, though. I am indeed a separate person from DN-boards1 - and a female, at that, not a male...104.56.23.57 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you now? I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry and Wikipedia:PROXYING. Paging Bbb23 who did the most recent checkuser and block. Voceditenore (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. 6 months. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like both sockpuppetry, block evasion and meatpuppetry Flow234 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• Just so people know, the IP is another of the longevity crazies. EEng 13:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I thought that had quietened down a lot for a while. Let's hope that this isn't the start of yet another one of those shitfights. Blackmane (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It never dies. EEng 15:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You can check out any time you like, but... _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia being open to all, if you work on building the encyclopedia for any length of time, you have the possibility of attracting your own personal stalker who considers pretty much anything you do a personal affront, and who considers it their sacred duty to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's really quite pathetic, but for some reason they just can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

For any of these articles that haven't gotten a keep vote at AfD I'd support reverting them to redirects and speedy closing the AfDs as needed. For any that do have a vote there's no harm in letting the process run, but maximum efficiency in tamping down one one of the fanboys in the horde of longevity acolytes leads to less wasted time for everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to see them all speedily restored to redirects if possible to save the time of having to wait a week or so. I redirected them myself (with the majority being over a year ago) and the redirects remained unchallenged until this IP address found them in my editing history. But I understand if the ones with 'Keep' votes need to wait the week. CommanderLinx (talk) 04:52, 13 Jun e 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Blade and the Commander. Rolling everything back to the way they were before this latest campaign seems to me the best outcome. Letting the afd's where !votes have been cast play out might be necessary, but it's a little galling to have to keep replowing the same fields because of bad behavior by a recurrung miscreant. David in DC (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal consequences of page naming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see Talk:University of British Columbia Faculty of Law#Requested move 29 May 2016 for some edits that concern me, this diff probably the best to show my concern. I do not believe that they warrant a block as a legal threat, but they raise some of the same issues IMO. Not sure how to best address it. Andrewa (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It is an implied legal threat. If they want Wiki legal to get involved, that implies an impetus to engage in legal action. Appropriate steps should be taken until the so-called legal dispute is resolved.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Borderline IMO, and note that later in the discussion they deny any legal threat. But I do not think we can permit this sort of argument. It has the chilling effect of a legal threat. Is there a less serious censure than a block which might be applied? Andrewa (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not serious. At all. If they're chilling the entire remark should be collapsed as disruptive, not because it's a legal threat. The entire purpose of those kinds of complaints is to force an escalation to some higher authority, because the editor is presuming we have that kind of hierarchy (we don't) and that he or she is only dealing with peons at that discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talk page explaining some basic concepts - hopefully that's the end of it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to reassure Andrewa that you were absolutely right to raise this here, but I agree with the others that there isn't a legal threat (although it's pretty close). It's fair to say that the user is engaging in disruptive editing and we should continue to keep an eye on that. WaggersTALK 14:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. The disruption is not just the borderline legal threat, the tone of the editing has a broader WP:OWN flavour to it, IMO. Fortunately its main target here is a very experienced and cool-headed contributor. But if it were directed at a newbie it would be very sad, and if a newbie were to take it as an example of the sort of discussion we want and do likewise, sadder still. The contributor has been here for some years and should know better, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not to do directly with the "legal threats" issue—but is it still the case, as I was told years ago, that a redirect carries as much "Google juice" as an article name itself? If so, should this be pointed out on the article talkpage? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If so, that is a very important point. It takes the force out of the argument; Perhaps even completely negates it. Even the possibility of it being the case throws the onus of proof back on the contributor making these allegations of legal consequences, IMO.

And it makes sense to me. Google have been sometimes a bit cagey about revealing algorithms, so it may not be possible to tell definitively. But from what I do know of them, it seems to be 100% accurate. Andrewa (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• The possible legal threat comes from an editor claiming that how Wikipedia names an article could have major effects on the school's branding. And you're taking that at face value? What notable school is so fragile to suggest that whatever Wikipedia names the article on the school matters one whit? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Good points and well put. The issue I brought here has been addressed IMO (thanks all) but should the wider issues of the possible impacts of Wikipedia article naming be pursued in a more appropriate forum? Where? Andrewa (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NSP fanbase responding to YouTube request

A quick FYI: In a Game Grumps YouTube episode that was uploaded today,[61] one of the presenters made the comment "I wish I had my own Wikipedia page" - as a result, there was a sudden influx of editors at Dan Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Leigh Daniel Avidan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as having some related editing at Ninja Sex Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Bringing this up here so a few additional editors can scan through the pages and add them to their watchlists. While some of the editors appear to be acting in good faith to try to create a viable page (although still lacking third-party refs), there's also a significant amount of vandalism that already resulted in semi-protection on at least one of those pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the article I'd say the subject is non-notable I've tagged the Dan Avidan Article as CSD A7--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

And the CSD was removed so sent to AFD --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolved then? Until of course we get reliable sources about the YouTube video itself asking for an article to be created and the subsequent deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Kinda urgent - botched a page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

History made - probably the first-ever WP:Page mover botched move on Wikipedia! An admin needs to delete Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and move Draft:Move/Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting there after a botched WP:PM/C#4 round-robin move reverting two previous undiscussed moves which went against the MOS.

Seems a {{trout}} is in order :) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Satellizer: If you simply want the primary page name to be Reactions to 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, 'tis done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and Satellizer: Seems like all the members of Category:Reactions to terrorist attacks have the format "Reactions to the xxx terrorist attack" when the base page name is "xxx terrorist attack". I've moved it to Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I hope the page move isn't controversial. Regards, Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. I think this is probably what Satellizer actually wanted, but it wasn't obvious from the original post. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Epicgenius' title is correct (Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting). To clarify, my original request was not for moving the actual article itself but for moving a redirect with edit history which redirects there over another (accidentally created) redirect. Apologies for any misunderstanding. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like everything here is all good. (And I've also had some page mover mistakes too – you aren't the first one Satellizer. ) Kylo, Rey, & Finn Consortium (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

size issue, reverts at List of Masters of the Universe Characters

this user stumbled upon the page upon patrolling for things to edit. noting the violation of WP:SIZE (refer to article talk page), created seperate articles for the sections and moved them, see in here. it went unopposed and agreed on until the time the revert wars began (see subsequent revisions with edit summaries). requesting admin intervention.ping User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi User:TheDwellerCampFAMASFREENODE (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Now there's a coincidence! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

So the OP has been around for about 2 weeks (if that). Within five days of being here, started this RFA (!) and likes to threaten other users with ANI. Not bad for a "new" editor. On an unrelated note, I think there's a boomerang in my sock. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Does the ping substitute the required ANI notice? TheDwellerCamp (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I concur that FAMASFREENODE is probably not a new user. His or her frankly strange manner of speech ("This user" in place of a first person reference, use of formal grammar in all situations) strikes me as geared towards avoiding speaker attribution efforts given its such an artificial manner of speaking. Whether that's relevant is another matter entirely. In any event there's a WP:ANEW thread on this editor as well. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: @FAMASFREENODE: I agree. The use of "This user" is very odd, and he/she is clearly a sock of some other user. The user in question seems oddly good with Wikipedia policy, (That's not a indication of sockpuppetry), and seems very disruptive (Combined with the first statement, we seem to have a sock). Take that boomerang out of your sock, Lugnuts, you are going to need it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Irony here being that TheDwellerCamp is a freshly blocked sock. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still don't trust FAMASFREENODE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The fun never stops on ANI... GAB^gab 18:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This comment in particular looks fairly suspect, [here's the link]. Some users are very good at editing Wikipedia when they joined (I read the polices for a month before I joined, and got 2 different messages from people asking if I was a sock), but if someone was good at editing Wikipedia from the beginning, why would they file an RfA? It's not adding up. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• IF FAMASFREENODE is a sock (and I concur with the analysis above that raises suspicions), then its purpose is clearly trolling - no sock files an RfA without an intent to disrupt. Considering the report made here by another sock, could this be two puppetmasters competing with each other? BMK (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with these findings. Knowledge of concepts such as WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT, as well as submitting an RFA so early make me suspicious that there's sockpuppetry going on here. Omni Flames (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Winterysteppe isn't a typical sockmaster, he was a good editor who tried to fight his wiki-addiction by getting blocked, and makes socks to get his fix. ansh666 04:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that sounds fairly run-of-the-mill to me, with the single except of getting blocked deliberately. I believe mamy puppetmasters have Wiki-addictions they can't control, and that some percentage of those were good editors at some point. Look at Kumioko. I don;t really care why one takes the step into the dark side, once you're there, experience indicates that there's very little chance of successfully coming back, even granted that the community is willing to extend the chance. BMK (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

This user is still waiting to be notified that there is a discussion taking place about him. :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• If FAMASFREENODE is a sock, might the RfA be a nice high profile way to appear a new editor, and so the RfA would be camouflage? EdChem (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@EdChem: Yes. It would be a clever way to camouflage a sock. But, it probably backfired, as it shows that the user in question had a clear understanding of WP policy, but is editing disruptively. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Any progress in determining if FAMASFREENODE is a sock? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately - and I perceive this as a flaw in our security system - CUs generally require an account to check the proposed sock against. There have been numerous situations where experienced editors have recognized the behavior of a new editor as being extremely sock-like, but because they cannot identify which puppetmaster the sock is controlled by, nothing is done. Behavioral evidence ("it quacks like a duck") will be accepted in the most obvious of cases, but not in all of them. It is my belief that the project would be much better served if the "no fishing expeditions" rule was done away with, and also my understanding that some other language Wikipedias have been able to do so, withotu conflcit with the privacy policies of the WMF. I think (and this is only a personal opinion) that the libertarian roots of Wikipedia may be somewhat stronger here then they are elsewhere in the Wikimedia empire. BMK (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked them since their overall editing has been problematic enough to warrant one, especially given the sockpuppetry concerns, which I think are valid. Can someone take a look at this closure they did and either re-open it or re-close it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• It will need to be done by an admin. Or re-opened for a few more days. Consensus was shfting/heavily leaning towards changing the block to indef - and Fam had closed/archived it based on their already being blocked for a week. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'll reopen it. It'll be my first time doing it, so if I make a mistake please correct! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me Omni Flames (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Date vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

MarioSonicU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing a sneaky form of vandalism, changing release dates on video game articles, either deleting the source and putting in a new, unsupported release date, or just changing the release itself, whether there's a source or not. Here is one example, here is another. This edit summary leads me to believe they're may be purposely trying to hide their vandalism, too. Eik Corell (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional editor has turned to sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Note the accounts User:Lawyerdvrao and User:Dr d v rao. For both the accounts, the only activity is writing articles about themself, at two titles D.V. Rao and Dr d v rao (page history). All edits, naturally, advertising himself. The guy needs to be blocked. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

For the discussion on the deletion of the page User:Lawyerdvrao created, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.V. Rao. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The guy has become a nuisance to deal with. While that alone is not enough to block someone, I believe the self-promotion (on two accounts and two articles, nonetheless) is enough. You'll also notice an IP address from India editing D.V. Rao. I believe that is their IP address, so that might need to be blocked, too. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Why are the two accounts? Whatever else may happen, one of them should be indeffed. BMK (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

SPI filed here. Jytdog (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both have been blocked indefinitely, the master for advertising, promotion and sockpuppetry, and the other as a sock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evasion of blocks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The blocked user Lagoset (which has an also blocked sock puppetry, Fivestarts) seems to be evading his blockade with (at least) these three ips: 147.84.145.193 217.197.27.145 217.197.27.214. He continues doing the same things: copyright violations, including promotional pages, unreliable sources, massive and/or unrelated links on the See also section, etc. e.g., [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 147.84.145.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for copyright violation
• Blocked 217.197.27.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for spam links
• 217.197.27.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been used for some time so left it.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deletion of logo violating copyright

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. I have uploaded the coat of arms of the Cheadle Hulme School for the article (Cheadle Hulme School.svg) that I have extracted from the logo of the school, but after a discussion with somebody from the Communications department of this school I think this image is a copyright violation because it is an incomplete version of the logo (derivate work). Can an administrator delete it? I will try to trace the coat of arms myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaphaelQS (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 June 2016‎

The logo in question is File:Cheadle_Hulme_School.svg. I'm unsure whether or not this specific file would indeed be protected under copyright (and if so, if we'd have a fair-use claim) so I have not myself deleted the image. May well be deletable under the grounds that the uploader requested deletion, though. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the author is requesting deletion I have gone ahead and done that. At the time it was not being used on any page. If it was an incomplete version of the logo then it is not ideal for the encyclopedia. RaphaelQS should know that we can use copyrighted images if we use them in a fair use capacity so a low resolution duplicate of the logo is permissible in the appropriate article(s). HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I was tracking down a vandal's work

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

and arrived at this talk page, which has no article. Talk:Julia L. Jackson. I am hoping that someone there knows what to do about it, and will do it. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. IPs can't create articles, so sometimes they create a talkpage instead. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Beyond My Ken's banning Wikipedians from user talk page (and incivility)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Beyond My Ken,

I thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia, including in the article space and in working to resolve disputes and conflicts and deal with other editors.

Regarding User talk:Anomalocaris#Please be aware..., since you wrote,

Please do not reply on my talk page as, of this time, you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are required to by Wikipedia policy.... Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me.

this is the only way I know of to respond.

Since 16 May 2016, I have edited at least 50 articles relating to or linking to Murder, Inc. As part of this campaign, at 20:27, 30 May 2016, I edited Flatiron Building with edit summary {{use mdy dates}}; Murder, Inc.; logical quotes; dashes; ''The'' New York Times; ''The'' Wall Street Journal; ''The'' Washington Post; spaced initials; ins space after period. (I should have added nonbreaking space before unit abbrev (m).) An hour later, at 21:29, 30 May 2016, you edited the same article with summary spaced not app here, removing the space between pp. and the page number in six places. A day later, at 17:19, 31 May 2016, I reverted you with summary '''All''' examples at Wikipedia:Citing sources show space between "p." or "pp." and the page number. Four hours later, at 21:20, 31 May 2016, you reverted me with edit summary better before.

Fifteen minutes later, at 21:35, 31 May 2016, after my one and only reversion of Flatiron Building, you posted at User_talk:Anomalocaris#Please take note... something that purports to justify your removal of the spaces and warned me against edit warring, which was unnecessary because I had not edit warred in this episode, and my edit history shows that I scrupulously avoid edit warring. Except for blatant vandalism, my practice for many years has been that I never revert more than once.

Half an hour later, at 22:12, 31 May 2016, Alansohn reverted you in Flatiron Building with edit summary rv chg; looks better with the space *AND* complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources.

A day later, at 08:28, 1 June 2016, I responded on your talk page to your post on my talk page, at User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note.... I referenced Wikipedia sources and discussed what Ignore all rules does and does not mean. I agreed with you that edit warring is bad and pointed out that I hadn't done it. I showed that Wikipedia:Citing sources calls for the space. I showed that among the most-read articles on Wikipedia, of the eight that I examined, seven had page number references, and all seven standardize on this space. Two hours later, at 10:46, 1 June 2016, you removed my comment on your talk page (which, of course, you had the right to do) with edit summary b.s (which shows contempt for my well-researched, well-considered comment, for dispute resolution based on precedent and the research thereof, and for civil comment in general).

Your contempt for de jure and de facto Wikipedia standards aroused my curiosity and I looked at your edit history. I looked at John Randel Jr. and at 16:20, 1 June 2016, I edited it with summary dashes; avoid en dash after "from"; comma after city, state; space after period; spaced initials. All of these changes are consistent with WP:MOS, The Chicago Manual of Style and other major style books, and the tireless efforts of many other editors here at Wikipedia. You could have thanked me. You could have ignored me. Instead, an hour later, at 17:31, 1 June 2016, you reverted me with summary Undid revision 723197351 by Anomalocaris (talk) following another editor around is defined as WP:HARRASSMENT (your redlink). This edit was harmful to Wikipedia by reintroducing style errors that another editor had carefully removed.

Eleven minutes later, at 17:42, 1 June 2016, you posted to my talk page at User talk:Anomalocaris#Please be aware... a message referencing WP:HARASSMENT and the definition of Wikihounding. None of this was relevant to my recent work, because I had and I have no interest or intent in creating irritation, annoyance or distress to anyone, certainly not to you. You are mistaken, we never had a dispute over Flatiron; I've never edited that article, but I did edit Flatiron Building. You wrote, "it is extremely difficult for me to see your recent edit to [John Randel Jr.], making the same kinds of changes you made to [Flatiron [sic]], which I objected to, as anything but a deliberate attempt at Wikihounding."

BMK, whatever happened to WP:Assume Good Faith? How in any way was your work at John Randel Jr. harmed by dashes; avoid en dash after "from"; comma after city, state; space after period; spaced initials? I deserved a little love and appreciation, not threats of administrative adjudication.

And a minute later, at 17:43, 1 June 2016, you unilaterally closed off further discussion with a ban on my communicating with you except when required to by Wikipedia policy. This is very troubling, because it aborts normal dispute resolution, yet you employ the stratagem of a unilateral user talk page ban coupled with a pinging ban so frequently that you have canned the text at User:Beyond_My_Ken/code#Banning from talk page. At 01:45, 28 March 2016, on a ridiculous pretext, you posted it at User_talk:Ceoil, which led to Ceoil filing here at AN/I the same day. The two of you hashed it out there and you withdrew your talk page ban against Ceoil, and soon you were friends again. I take no position on the original dispute between the two of you, but your 28 March talk page ban of Ceoil was ludicrous, and so was your 1 June talk page ban of me. User talk page bans leads to hours of unproductive effort that could rather be devoted to improving Wikipedia articles, and to unnecessary traffic here at AN/I. They raise complex policy questions that I hope Wikipedia shall never have further reason to discuss.

If someone harasses you on your talk page, ask them to stop. If they don't stop harassing you, that's what AN/I is for. Please use that or some other dispute resolution process. Please cease and desist from your use of a unilateral user talk page ban, with or without a pinging ban.

Also, you have recurring lack of civility. Whatever the provocation, this intercourse intercourse edit summary is not how we communicate at Wikipedia, and your recent posting to new IP user's talk page wrongly implies that the Wikipedia community uses Mafia-style enforcement. We shouldn't even joke about this. Please communicate like the great encyclopedia editor that you are, and avoid profanity or gangland threats, even in jest.

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Um, before we go any further, just what is an "intercourse intercourse edit summary"? Seems like there's always something new to learn about Wikipedia. EEng 20:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems I've been doing this whole thing wrong for years now... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's creepy to think some editors are allowed to oversight the edit summaries while they're being intercoursed. EEng 20:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

EEng: To answer your question, just click intercourse intercourse edit summary and see for yourself. I hope you agree that the edit summary there is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• What administrative action are you requesting here? There does not appear to be an ongoing issue of disruption - indeed, BMK has specifically disengaged from whatever dispute exists by asking that you stop contacting them. So please give us a tl;dr version of the outcome you're seeking on this noticeboard. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• TL;DR needed This just reads like a complaint to BMK, who told you not to bother him on his user talk page. While I take a dim view of most WP:KEEPOFF demands, this is decidedly the wrong way to escalate whatever complaint you have with BMK that you find yourself unable to directly talk to him about. I'm not going to say I don't see a request for admin action here because, honestly, I gave up after the first few paragraphs... rather, I'd request you point us to what you're asking for. This is a mess, and I don't blame BMK for not wanting something like this on his user talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ: The "ongoing issue" is that BMK claimed WP:Ownership of content, including but not limited to John Randel Jr., and set forth rules for what editing I am and am not allowed to do, and warned me on my talk page, to intimidate me against editing pages BMK has edited. Then BMK stifled any further discussion with a user talk page ban and ping ban. You call it "disengagement"; I call it a violation of WP:OWN, intimidation, and incivility. For the outcome I seek, keep reading.

Mendaliv: Thank you for the pointer to WP:KEEPOFF. It says much that is apropos here:

"Often, the request comes seemingly without warning, almost as a shot across the bow. While it is usually clear that you and the other editor are not getting along, an open-ended "go away!" can come as a surprise."

That's exactly what happened, except that even the not getting along aspect came as a surprise. I posted a polite message to BMK's talk page and Wham!

"It may be the case that the demand to keep off could be used as evidence of unreasonableness or incivility. This might especially be true if such demands are made often, made rapidly after a first encounter with an editor, or made in response to actions that cannot objectively reasonably be considered offensive."

That's one of the points I made in the first place. BMK resorts to "the demand" so often that it's canned at User:Beyond_My_Ken/code#Banning from talk page for opening as needed. Among the many times BMK used it was against Ceoil, who responded by filing here at AN/I the same day; the parties made up, but whatever dispute existed between them could have been solved with much less effort by Ceoil and the AN/I community if MBK hadn't made "the demand". In my case, BMK made "the demand" rapidly after a first encounter, and in response to action(s) that I do not believe can reasonably be considered offensive.

Mendaliv, do you really believe that User talk:Beyond My Ken#Please take note... was so terribly inappropriate for BMK's talk page, in response to his posting on my talk page attempting to justify his reversion of my by-the-book edit? —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ: The outcome that I desire is

1. Either BMK withdraw the ban against me, or BMK withdraw threats against me for making edits like this one, or an official declaration here that such threats are without merit.
2. BMK agrees not to use the talk page ban (with or without a ping ban) as a shot across the bow, or an official recommendation here to this effect.
3. BMK agrees not to use the talk page ban (with or without a ping ban) rapidly after a first encounter or in response to non-offensive postings, or an official recommendation here to this effect.
   • WP:Assume good faith is part of determining if something is offensive or not.
4. BMK agrees to avoid incivility manifested in the intercourse intercourse edit summary and the profanity and gangland threats on a IP user talk page, or an official recommendation here to this effect. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• BMK regularly "bans" people in that fashion. It's just a peacock moment. Ignore and do something else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I propose closing this thread as unactionable. BMK is more or less perfectly within his rights to request that others not post to his user talk page, or ping him, and to the best of my knowledge he doesn't even have to necessarily provide any specific reason to do so. If there are other venues at which discussion could take place, such as the talk page of an article, it can and under such circumstances preferably should take place there. I cannot see what if anything can really be accomplished by this thread here. John Carter (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Close it. BMK has done nothing really wrong here. The first three points above are invalid, and the profanity was not directed at anyone (except "the facts") so point four is also invalid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uhuru Movement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Another editor (Esplace) continues to remove sourced text from the above-referenced article. I have warned him/her about NPOV and 3RR and to seek consensus but I am not sure is he/she will stop. The editor and I both are at 2RR at this moment. I would appreciate it if someone could take a look and get an idea b/c I don't really understand what the editor is complaining about. Quis separabit? 01:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The section on Mixon is specifically problematic. out of the 4 external links, 3 are dead. "On the other hand, many black Oaklanders, as well as those belonging to other racial groups, seemed largely opposed to such sentiments" This statement mentions racial characteristics which seem 1. out of line. Why not residents or citizens if the link provides such information. 2. "Many" is nonspecific enough to need little verification while still maintaining an illegitimate weight. In other words, what is "many"? The next sentence " a clear majority of those who regularly campaign against abuses of police power also rejected any attempt to attach legitimacy to Mixon's murder rampage" contains the term "a clear majority" which is not clear. It also talks about his murder rampage, a crime for which he was never convicted. In my attempt to explain this, the edit was undone and the other editor gave me a warning for vandalism, which was not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esplace (talk • contribs) 01:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok... Point by point...

• Two dead links were found and replaced by references to the WayBack Machine (archive.org). This is a very useful website and I suggest you acqaint yourself with it.
• People who are dead are not posthumously convicted. Your observation that "he was never convicted" is a bit silly. The man was dead.
• Just stating "I'm removing the Mixon events again as the links are dead and it violates the NPOV policy." is not "explaining", though you did voice your objections later.
• Removing an entire section (which is well sourced) is not the way to go. Removing it once is not that bad (WP:BRD), repeating that is definitely a bad move.
• This page is about editor behavior, not the actual content of pages. Your (Esplace) behavior is far from impeccable, but since you stopped short of 3RR and 1RR does not apply, a warning should suffice.

Conclusion: This is mainly a content dispute and stopped short of an actual edit war. Fortunately. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Noted. I saw that some of the links were fixed after all of this happened.

2. You may think it's a bit silly, but murder is a criminal charge. Calling someone a murderer after they are dead without charges being leveled is a bias. Murder cannot be justified, but under American law sometimes killing can be. If we are to maintain neutrality, being aware of biased language is important. This is probably a content issue, but being called silly for paying attention to language is a bit insulting, however.

3. Which is why I didn't revert back to removing all of the content. My second revision was to try to bring the paragraph into line with acceptable policies by removing the more egregious sections about community support which weren't supported in the links provided. Is removing content that is not supported by the supporting material disallowed until someone happens to come across the page and agree? Esplace (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue content here. That's what the talk page is for. Kleuske (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename category per outcome of CfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right place. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8#Category:Online retail companies by country was closed with consensus to rename, but Category:Online retail companies of Canada was not moved to Category:Online retailers of Canada. – nyuszika7h (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've had a look at the discussion and have moved the category, leaving a redirect -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 21:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning username

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A recent user has the username User:Icutmywrists99. Inspection of their edits suggests that they are probably the same user that is behind other accounts with offensive usernames that have also edited the River Esk, North Yorkshire article, but I thought I'd bring it to attention here because of the policy regarding suicide threats. -- The Anome (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Monchimarketts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Monchimarketts (talk · contribs), after making practically no edits since creating their account in February, has over the last 24 hours made over 500 edits, practically all of which are adding pointless or spurious words to articles. [73] [74] [75]. A number are actually wrong, making sentences ungrammatical [76] [77], or change words to numbers against MOS [78]. They're certainly not, apart from a very few, useful edits. It occurs to me that this is probably an account trying to circumvent 30/500 protection without being too obvious? Also, might this be worth looking at in terms of some sort of mass rollback? Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's in order to be an Extended Confirmed user on Hank Goldberg, which has been caned by socking recently and recently had its protection level increased. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you're probably right; however they have now stopped their editing spree so let's just wait and see what, if anything, happens next. I would say anyone deliberately making silly edits to meet 30/500 is basically disrupting the project to hat-collect and should be blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at quite a few and they are definitely disruptive, reducing the standard of the writing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the edit [79] they did finally make to Hank Goldberg after reaching 500 edits is worth a block on its own. Laura Jamieson (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The / A point is, that that was the article the account was established for in the first place. There's a whole sock farm in that history- can someone do the honours at WP:SPI please. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the work involved by editors in removing some of the stupid edits this user has made, I suggest a final warning is in order, if people think a block is not in order. This is to allow prior warned and swift action to prevent additional problems if the same behaviour quickly starts up again. Additionally, the gaming in order to get the extra Extended Confirmed User status, mentioned above, could be reasonably resisted in so far as it might be that they should not be swarded to this editor, or, if it awarded automatically, it could be removed on the grounds of gaming the system, and to give a message to prevent gaming by others in a similar way.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked initially as WP:NOTHERE then realized it's very likely a sock of Jaredgk2008. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd talk page creations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP has been making many random talk pages, with a couple words. See here. Can an admin check it out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePlatypusofDoom (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Borderline racism and trolling by experienced editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, User:Floydian felt the need to refer to Muhammad Ali by his original name [80]. When called out on this by one user ([81]), his response was this, with the edit summary "Praise Allah, I don't care". On being pulled up again, his seond response was "White liberal guilt alert" with the edit summary "Call the waahmbulance". Since no editor at the page is managing to convey to Floydian how unpleasant his behaviour is in a collaborative encylopedia, perhaps an admin could provide a friendly word? Laura Jamieson (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Urban dictionary - "wahmbulance" - when someone is crying over something stupid, you tell them that you are calling one of these[82] DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this should be considered actionable except insofar as what I see as misuse of edit summary. That is just my opinion. I can accept that other opinions could be as valid as mine. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not suggesting a block, just perhaps that someone should provide some sort of clue as to the correct method of interacting with others, since said clue appears absent. Laura Jamieson (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

In a sense, it takes two to tango. Once the statement "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive" is made, a response becomes likely. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that's sweet. Longtime editors should know better. "I've never made any attempt to conform to political correctness nor to avoid offending someone" sounds all manly but is just ignorant; the one offended is Ali, who (duh) changed his name for well-known reasons. Using his birth name, which Ali of course called his "slave name", is typically done by white folk who still can't handle a black man being not just a good boxer but also an outspoken critic of the racism of his time. I don't know if it's straight-up racism, but it's a kind of race baiting. Floydian, it's been a few decades since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance--get over it. And, eh, what's wrong with avoiding offending other people? Isn't that one of the bases of civilized society? Drmies (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If his father's namesake Cassius Marcellus Clay (politician) were around, he might be a little sad that Clay abandoned his birth name, but would likely be mightily impressed by the changes that Ali helped to bring about. As to racism or offensiveness, it's really just silliness. If he were talking about George Burns, he wouldn't likely insist on calling him Nathan Birnbaum. But those names were both essentially "stage names" - and in America, at least, you can call yourself whatever you want to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism is founded on ignorance. I hope Floydian now realises his incivility and will now be dropping the argument. Of course, he could just be recalling the barbershop scene from Coming to America (though Eddie Murphy can get away with it as he's parodying stereotypes). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Xenophobia and racism is founded upon deliberate an vexatious ignorism. I'm sick and tired of the argument that labels you with these traits/terms just because a statement you've made might offend someone. Muhammad Ali (did I spell it right, someone ridicule me if I did not) is Cassius Clay and Cassius Clay is Muhammad Ali. My use of either name has absolutely no influence on any state of affairs. Hence, my reference to white liberal guilt; the idea that we should censor any idea, concept or opinion that could possibly upset someone, even when that person will not and can not ever witness said "offensive" statement themselves. I am parodying stereotypes myself; the difference is that I am not a member of the culture being sarcastically stereotyped. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Shall we hat the off-topic discussion of a good faith but reverted close? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FAMASFREENODE, I seriously doubt that Drmies or Ritchie333 would agree with this "not even an issue" close (now reversed). Civility incidents described as racism and xenophobia are very definitely issues, even if they don't result in any sanction. Non-admin closures should be non-controversial and include a balanced summary. Looking at your talk page, it looks like you are keen to prove yourself to be sysop-worthy after your recent NOTNOW RfA, but closures like this one won't help. EdChem (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Added diff of close EdChem (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that "not even an issue" is not a non-controversial non-admin close, and have reverted it. I offer no opinion on the dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) @Boing! said Zebedee: It's not the first time he has made a close that had to undone, and with exactly the same edit summary. Muffled Pocketed 13:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Noted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) @Boing! said Zebedee and EdChem:referral by birthname is not any integral part of racism. the defendant user mentioned that factFAMASFREENODE (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) That's not for you to decide - when you close an ANI report it should only reflect the consensus that has been determined, not your personal judgment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) This user notes the fact that the revision displayed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is one reverted with praise towards this user.FAMASFREENODE (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Yes, well. That user should recognise that I was assuming good faith and phrasing it gently, kindly even, in the knowledge that you were probably trying to help. If I had possessed the knowledge then that I possess now (that you had put yourself forward for an RFA after just five days here?), then I assure you my form of words would probably have been very different. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

• A response from User:Floydian that you are hearing this would allow this to be closed. The essence of CIVIL (as difficult as it is to enforce) is don't be a jerk and do things that just create friction and get in the way of the work here, and Floydian you are definitely creating unnecessary friction, and doing it on the hot-button issue of race. This is not about PC, it is about professionalism. Are you hearing this? Jytdog (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That user called me a troll there, after I agreed with him on the Howe nomination. I can only figure that he's trying to stir up trouble, and the OP here took the bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
• I fired a shot across their bows. Will be happy to enact a block for any repetition. --John (talk) 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A stern warning across the bow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't been on since this event took place. There was absolutely zero bad or racist intention in my reference to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay, as both names are equally familiar to me; I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam. FWIW, I like to stir the pot; usually net good results of it. After 13 years here, block threats provide comic relief to my day. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Jeez, Floydian, if you prance around with an attitude of "you can't catch me, I'm unblockable" then you run the risk of an admin rising to the bait and blocking you. Stop stirring the pot and do something useful. For example, it looks like David Gilmour is not too far off taking to GA. In future, I would choose your battles more carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not that I'm saying I'm unblockable nor is it meant to come across as snarky attitude. I'm simply disillusioned at the politicking that has come to plague many processes here (ITN being a notable one), so I just don't care if I'm blocked; it wouldn't be punitive. As for doing useful stuff, I have two A-class nominations and a Good/Featured topic on the way in a few weeks. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That's good stuff. I personally can't think of a situation where I'd want to block you, but I'm not like other admins. In my experience, when you get your head stuck into a good GA improvement the noticeboards just fade into the distance. I'm still beavering away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should matter if someone made a passing reference, including in edit summary, to Muhammad Ali as Cassius Clay. This apparently began with one reference to "Clay" by Floydian, seen here. Another editor responded, saying "referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive".[83] Is it "pretty offensive"? I think that comment is slightly over the top. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Some cheese to accompany your whine?

What boggles me, is whom did I offend? That user? Ali? Ali's family? Every Muslim convert ever? To BaseballBugs, I meant that more as a tongue-in-cheek poke to what you said; the bane of the lack of tone on the internet. I am a Devil's Advocate, and I have no problem debating against a person who shares my point-of-view if only to bring unspoken points to the discussion. As I stated, this is part of my persona, and I will not change that... nor have I over the past decade. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the image at right, see WP:WHINING. EEng 22:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards. You could have done nothing else and ignored it (my recommendation), but instead you said "call the wahmbulance". Now, that's slightly better than "Fuck you, fuck you and fuck you ... who's next?" but not by much. Drmies' point in particular is you didn't seem to either realise or care that you caused offence, and just came across as naive or ignorant. Anyway, I'll tell you again - if you want to say "fuck you" to anyone who doesn't align with your way of working, you do it at your own risk, and just - you know - lighten up a bit. I think anything else you post to this thread is going to cause more harm than good and make it more likely someone like John is going to hit "block". As the old saying goes, you've really gotta drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:32, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I applaud you Ritchie for your excellent comment here when you said "I think the problem is not that you offended someone, but how you reacted afterwards.", we can sense that Floydian indeed like to stir the plot and accuse others of White guilt, seems rampant with people like him hold on Conservative or right wing values. I think he knows how offensive he is but he is using this for no other reason than to start a conflict. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie333. "I wasn't aware how contentious it was, figuring it akin to Cat Stevens/Yusaf Islam" is probably fine in this instance. But you had lots of options on how to handle things once it was made clear it was contentious and the way you did handle it was a fairly bad one. If for some reason you couldn't just ignore it, it's not unresonable for you to learn a bit about it. Just reading the article would quickly tell you that it's not a Yusuf Islam situation. Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Part of the blame for the kerfuffle lies with the editor saying that "...referring to Ali by his former name is pretty offensive."[84] That is an opinion, it is stated with too much forcefulness, and "pretty offensive" is terminology of emotions, consequently it is inflammatory. Another response might have been less emotional and more cerebral. A more intellectual response might have included a quote and attributed it to a source: "In 1964, the boxing legend who told the world he was 'The Greatest' changed his name to Mohammad Ali, dubbing his former alias, Cassius Clay, 'my slave name'".[85] Thanks to Drmies for pointing this out earlier in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• All said, I'll aim to retreat towards editing articles and avoid noticeboards that irk me, as my tone gets out of hand. Fair point, however: my (partially) conservative views are amongst a minority on here, and still deserve due-consideration. And with all due respect, can some attention be payed to the longstanding crapshow that goes on between a half-dozen or so users (not naming names) at WP:ITN/C? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• I recently learned the term deadnaming (see the quotation pulldowns for context) in relation to Ali and also to transgender people. Yes, it's frequently done to give offense on purpose, and that's probably why Floydian's post set people off, even though it apparently wasn't his intention. It sounds like he's aware of the issue now and can be more attuned to it going forward, so I think this thread can be closed. 50.0.121.79 (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Original use of "Clay" name by Floydian was gratuitous, not to say it would be inappropriate in the article. Quite the contrary. That merits a tsk tsk. A sound slap on the wrist for polemic use of edit summaries is also called for. Seriously, that shouldn't ever cross one's mind after they've lived in the WP neighborhood for a year. Knock it the fuck off. The end. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, exactly. I'm still a little concerned that Floydian describes his xenophobia as "my conservative views are a minority on here", but given Donald Trump, nothing surprises me from that continent these days. Laura Jamieson (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing on Jesus Christ (reopened)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is about [86] where I have been accused of edit warring and of supporting racism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Adasegogisdi has also broken 3RR at Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

This is true. We have a small group of editors, namely [87] and User:StAnselm blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint. -Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

When reverting her edits, the WP:FRINGE view is that most Christians would support Jesus Christ the Father, which is a fringe Christian belief and a heresy for mainstream Christians. The WP:OR is using the Bible as source of beliefs expressed in Wikipedia's voice, instead of quoting secondary sources published by Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this here? This sounds like a content dispute and you should follow the dispute resolution hierarchy, and please remove the pictures. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it is here because one editor is calling other editors "white supremacists" and "racists". Is there nothing that can be done to stop this? StAnselm (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've removed the pictures as they're part of a content dispute which cannot be solved here. Content disputes should be discussed on article talk pages, and bropught to dispute resolution if they cannot be solved there. Admins rule on behavioral problems, not content disputes.

@Tgeorgescu: In your complaint, you failed to mention that you dropped a ton of templated warnings on the talk page of Adasegogisdi. All you received was a standard edit warring notice, and a hand-rolled notice about racism. BMK (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, if I have dropped them in bad faith I should be reprimanded, but if I have rightly issued them I should be commended. I even tried to explain her that the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Good faith or bad faith, putting a whole bunch of templates on someone's talk page can easily be interpreted as an attack. It would have been better to write a couple of paragraphs outlining the problems as you see them. BMK (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record: I have no preference for either image, what I objected against was expressing a fringe view and indulging in original research. My impression is that each subsequent policy violation deserves a higher order warning template, otherwise why are those templates there? They can be used to convey that an editor has repeatedly violated a certain policy. Wise editors are able to take heed and desist from violating policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because your tool box has a hammer in it doesn't mean you should use it to open the pickle jar. A wiser editor used templates sparingly, and discussion more. BMK (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I can well understand that you might think a warning template or two is a softer response than taking someone to ANI, because it is. Having said that, I see at least seven templates from you on that editor's talk page. If in the future you have to go so far as to issue a second warning template in quick succession, you might also add a bit more relevant text regarding the specific actions in question, and which policies and/or guidelines they violate. And, if you ever feel the need to go to a third template in a short period of time, it would probably be best to take the matter here first, because I tend to think third warnings without any action tend to be much less effective. John Carter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, good to know for the future. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bible is the primary source. And the Bible scholars they are using are obviously white racists and ignorant of the text. "Isaiah 53:2" and "Jesus has bronze skin". And there are secondary sources available: "UPCI" and "namb.net"-Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm seeing the issue here. In reading the text, an interpretation of one way or another is not "racism". It would be best if you not say that the comments are from racists or white supremacists. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Adasegogisdi for 48 hours for edit warring and breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reading their unblock request I'm wondering if a longer block might be in order. Calling editors "white supremacists" definitely is a personal attack, and reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

People from the middle east are traditionally considered to be Caucasian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

But there is a difference, albeit, maybe, a slight one, between being "Caucasian" and being "white". And I have to agree with Bbb23 that interpreting text should not be a basis for being branded a racist. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually that was me. Bbb23 just did the blocking. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - so I skwewed up. FWIW, if you ever have to deal with me in the future, you'll probably get used to my doing that. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Different cultures tend to portray Jesus as "one of us". This is no big deal. See Race and appearance of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

True, and hardly a reason to call another editor a racist. We have enough true racism in the world without throwing the claim around indiscriminantly. BMK (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• propose an indefinite block for:
  • their unblock request: White supremacist editors User talk:StAnselm and User talk:Tgeorgescu are upholding their views on Jesus and forbidding debate which followed
  • this warning to StAnselm and the same to Tgeorgescu:Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page and
  • this extremely aggressive post here at ANI.

This editor has The Truth^TM and is not here to collaborate with others who think differently; that together with the lack of competence demonstrated by taking an article in Popular Mechanics as The Last Word on how Jesus looked, is a recipe for endless disruption. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed. WP:CIR issues wrt WP:RS ([88], [89]) along with WP:OR (St. Calixtus catacomb image interpretation), unfounded accusations of racism and white supremacism for those who do not agree. Sufficient grounds for a ban, I would think. Kleuske (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I said that above regarding the unblock request. Immediately calling anyone who differs with you a racist or white supremacist is a tell-tale sign you aren't here for the collective good. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose indef block - This is a very new editor who has, I think, maybe taken on more than she should chew too early. I might not oppose some sort of lesser sanction, and would certainly encourage the editor to seek a mentor as per WP:MENTOR, as well as make use of the Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it might be a bit early for a site ban, particularly if the editor's primary field of interest is beliefs or groups of a broadly Christian nature which might be comparatively underrepresented here yet. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment to Adasegogisdi you need to find WP:RS with sufficient authority to support your claims. I mention authority here since the subject matter implies there most be many, many RS so we will naturally go with the ones that have the most support (i.e. are widely cited etc). We intentionally limited interpretations of primary sources, so claims like "These scholars are wrong because this primary source says...." are generally not really useful especially with a text as long as and with as complicated a history as the bible. Not to mention if this issue is Jesus Christ rather than "what the bible says about Jesus Christ", the bible is only one source anyway. If you are unable to find sufficiently compelling RS to support your claim, either your intepretation is wrong or it's right but for some reason people have realised yet. Rightly or wrongly, the nature of wikipedia means our articles will mostly stick with the normal view rather than a WP:Fringe view. Nil Einne (talk)

Well, the skin color of the Jesus image was not my problem with her edits, but the patently false claim that most Christian denominations would support Jesus Christ the Father (Patripassianism). Unfortunately, she combined two different claims in one edit, and one of those claims is ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters what the issue is. The point is they need sufficiently compelling reliable secondary sources, not their own intepretation of primary sources. If there isn't sufficient support for their intepretation in secondary sources then they need to accept their view is minority or fringe at the moment for whatever reason and until and unless this changes the article will reflect that and possibly not even mention their view at all. If they are able to find these secondary sources then they should do so rather than trying to prove something based on primary sources or poor secondary souces. This is quite an important point and one people often have trouble understanding since for general research going to primary sources is often encouraged but as an encylopaedia it isn't how we operate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt, as a newbie who did not know the rules. So, I support the indefinite block only if after her block expires she shows no signs of having learned from the block. As I have argued on Talk:Jesus, I find that she has WP:COMPETENCE problems and that she quite easily casts aspersions, but I am prepared to give her a chance if she shows that she has learned from her block. The gist is: it is not error which deserves indefinite blocking, but persisting in error. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and an indef (as of now) - Way too much, way too soon. Bans are for incorrigible LTAs, not relative newbies. Is this bad behavior? Absolutely, and I'm not questioning that. Still, once the block wears off, then I suggest we give her another chance, as per John Carter and Tgeorgescu. GAB^gab 00:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban and indefinite block This a week-old account. Wikipedia has respected editors who acted out when they first started editing the project. And it also didn't help that they also suffered "Death by template" on their user talk page. That blanket templating would anger any editor. I'm in favor of WP:ROPE and I think John Carter has a good point about having a diversity of editors' viewpoints. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban (for the present). I would have preferred the block to have been for the unfounded accusations of racism rather than merely being for edit-warring, so that a clear message would have been sent. But we certainly don't have enough evidence yet that basic competence is lacking, and with good mentoring and encouragement Adasegogisdi has the potential to become a fine editor. StAnselm (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've looked at their contribs and I don't see any evidence of potential to become a fine editor and lots of evidence for potential for continued disruption. Lots of people come to Wikipedia because they are committed to some view about X and they don't care at all about this place nor how we do things, and that is what I see here - NOTHERE. To be clear, in my view the indef should of course be appeal-able and they should be unblocked if they some show some inkling of understanding that Wikipedia is not a blog where it is OK to flame people and make very strong assertions that have no basis in policy or guidelines. But I can read :) and I see that others are not seeing things this way. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

• The edit warring and the charges of racism continue; I blocked the editor for a week, against my better judgment, because there were so many editors opposing an indef block. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• my opinion only I don't think this editor is going to improve their behavior, because everything about their editing here shows that they are on a mission from God. They jumped immediately to these subjects, creating a tract and picking a fight about the lead image. Every time we've discussed that image, it has been a struggle, given the huge range of possibilities and the importance this tends to have for the people who care enough to participate. It wasn't that long ago that we went through changing to the current image after a long discussion. So this new editor comes in spouting a great deal of tendentious nonsense (e.g., how is a Sicilian image from the 1100s based either on a Borgia from the 1400s or a German of any sort?). They can have some more rope, but it's just going to end up with more personal attacks and refusal to participate in anything resembling reasonable discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• After this request - I think the user has demonstrated that they are not going to be able to edit in a collaborative project. I think an indef block is appropriate here. SQL^{Query me!} 22:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, given the behaviour has continued after the block, I have switched to supporting an indef block as well. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm also switching to indef: "American racism", "Christ's ethnicity is clearly stated in the Bible, and should not be distorted by white fools who hate blacks", "Editors not discussing racist bias", "This racism is unacceptable", "We have a small group of editors... blocking the accurate and oldest picture associated with the article Jesus Christ to uphold their white supremacist viewpoint", "Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article". Enough already. GAB^gab 15:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Ban GAB said it above me, "Enough already." --Adam in MO Talk 16:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Indef As I stated before I felt that a longer block was in order originally as this editor did not seem to be here to build the encyclopedia. Further edits have proven this point. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - We don't escalate from one week to a ban for a personal attack, do we? Obviously, this might be a short car ride from here to there, but noobs need to be allowed a reasonable chance to adapt. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reluctant Support. The continuing accusations of racism that are based on nothing more than a preference for a particular image in the article (a preference that can be explained much more easily through means other than white supremacism) show a user who is either only here to pick a fight, or who doesn't understand what we expect in terms of collegiality. This is a shame, because alternative viewpoints on Jesus Christ and other articles would be very much welcomed. Reluctantly support a ban because I don't see anything coming out of this person's presence other than continued disruption, but I would also hope that at some point that ban can be lifted if the user can demonstrate an understanding of concepts such as WP:AGF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

• Note: I've reopened this because it was an improper close by FAMASFREENODE, who I've since blocked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Good block. I'm surprised it took so long TBH! Can we have a sweepstake on how long it is before talkpage access is revoked? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• A new (and now blocked for their username) user has posted on their talk page, so I'm curious as to whether or not that's the editor evading a block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Given the amount of apparent block evasion going on there, it might be worth opening an SPI to see if there's any disruption happening elsewhere. But that's getting off the topic of this particular thread. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC).

New proposal

• Propose a week- long block (but not a weaker one!). And, pace to Jytdog for the logic of his opening nomination, which I agree with. I think, as someone said, this is bad behaviour, and yes it is almost certainly intentional; but as a relatively new user, it could still be explained by the editor being unused to the demands we make of collegialty (if he's come form toxic environments such as FB debating pages, then this is a totally diferent one. As such, whilst agreeing with the motivation of Jytdog's proposal, suggest than Indef is too severe at this point. A week's block, however, will have the combined effect (hopefully) of removing him from the arena (for both his and WP's benefit- no opportunity to 'make' trouble or for us to imagine it) temporarilly, whilst providing him with enough WP:ROPE for a return to Jytdog's original proposal to be the only logical step for the community. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  The user us already on a one week block, due to expire tomorrow, so what are you actually proposing we do now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. I should withdraw that badly thought-out proposal and propose to make no other proposals that involve blocking for a week those currently blocked for a week. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparison

A lot of the early Depictions of Muhammad also look like a white guy. Was that "racist" also? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rothschild family article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I feel more eyes would be beneficial to our article Rothschild family - there seems to be a history of veiled (and not-so-veiled) conspiracy theory type additions by IPs. Not sure if it approaches the threshold for semi-protection, so I thought I'd raise it here for your input. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked IP 31.208.7.22 per the local policy against open proxies. It's on the EFnet RBL database as an open proxy and has previously been blocked by ProcseeBot as an open proxy. This doesn't relate to the Rothschild family article though I realise this IP has been editwarring some content into the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• 91.211.125.85 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same person as 31.208.7.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) judging by their contributions, some of which appear to me to be blatantly racist. DuncanHill (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Excuse me, how is clearly stating the involvement of Muslims in the first world racist? Are you upset that you don't understand the banking system, and how debt must be originated/tied to purchases/hard goods? You're not even qualified to discuss immigration policy and how it's changed, coincidentally, with all the "wars" that have happened lately. There is no racism in any of my statements, contrary to what you may claim. You sound like Tom Perkins, the man who I linked in the discussion, who is a recipient of money from the Royal Bank of Canada, when he said the attack on rich people is equivalent to the holocaust. So please, tell me, where is the racism? None. In fact, one could argue using the holocaust as a way to deflect the criticisms of rich people is racist. Everything I stated in the page was fact.
• You've reverted edits without justification. Where is your comment on why the Rothschild Rockefeller connection has been removed? Why haven't you discussed how you've failed to justify its removal when I produced an article that definitively states it is at least fifty years (original reversion was on the basis that there was no longstanding relationship, and that the current source that was supporting it did not state a time frame).

• Further, you ignored the FACT that the Rockefeller family name was in the infobox for YEARS and only RECENTLY (when initially reverted by a muslim, check the log and look at the IP's edit history) was contested. It was then re-inserted with a proper source, which was removed by User:Johnbod (who has a conflict of interest, see edit history full of Rothschild related articles. I suspect his job/position at the Royal Society brings him into contact with these people)

• User:DuncanHill then initially reverted the newest insertion, even though Johnbod's first two reversions (one for the FT.com article, another for the first telegraph article that is not the same as the one being used now) were fair based on his original argumeent (which was, again: articles did not state any duration of relationship and thus did not justify retaining infobox field). User:DuncanHill has not answered as to what is missing in the most recent insertion, because there is nothing to argue. It conclusively states fifty years, and they are trying to revert based upon a discussion that has not moved since I provided the most conclusive evidence (instead they've tried to call me names). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.211.125.85 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• The IP 91.211.125.85 has been blocked by Floquenbeam for one month. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'd like to also call attention to these two difs [90] [91] which show that 31.208.7.22 and 91.211.125.85 are likely the same person (thus sockpuppeting, meaning they should BOTH be banned for 6 months, not just 91) as well as this dif by a 3rd IP, whish should warrant a block whether its the same guy or not.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

When we block an open proxy, the user is not the intended target so it's not sockpuppetry as such here. 91.211.125.85 however was blocked for disruptive behaviour so using another IP will be straightforward block evasion. 142.105.159.60 45.40.143.57 I've blocked as another open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, I haven't been blocked...142.105.159.60 (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 45.40.143.57. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Checkingfax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After I nominated an article at FAC, Checkingfax (talk · contribs) made a number of large-scale (semi-?)automated edits to the article. This introduced a number of problems, including changing the citation style without discussion (compare my version to Checkingfax's), which is contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Due to the problematic nature of these changes, I reverted them. Checkingfax reverted me (subsequently introducing a variety of other problems to the article), assuring me on my talk page that we were on the same page. This led to a long and frustrating discussion on my talk page; I repeatedly explained that the user had changed my citation style. This they repeatedly denied; it became clear that they simply did not know what a citation style is. A choice quote: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." The user was not keen to listen, and eventually declared that they were disengaging. The user then received firm warnings about respect for WP:CITEVAR from me (twice) and from another administrator. Given that the user had failed to provide any reasons for their edits and was (at that time) refusing to engage, I then reverted to the original citation style. Despite the warnings they had received, Checkingfax has once again tried to force their preferred citation style into the article (and again introducing other problems), even mysteriously citing WP:CITEVAR in their edit summary. This stands on the article at the time of writing. I am at this stage very frustrated, having wasted many hours of my time on this problem (and delayed making changes to the article in line with the comments of FAC reviewers). As such, I am requesting a block; Checkingfax's actions are clearly contrary to WP:CITEVAR, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and, perhaps, given the introduction of many errors unrelated to citation format and a lack of understanding of what a "citation style" is, WP:COMPETENCE. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly, I have been there, done that and got the T-shirt. My advice is this - millions of people read Wikipedia day in, day out, possibly including your family, friends and co-workers. Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats, they want to find factually correct information that is well presented. The only winning move at FAC is not to play and I can think of at least 2 or 3 reviews where things like citation and template formatting have reared their ugly heads and thought "this is not worth my time", walking away from it. I don't think a block is going to get consensus unless Checkingfax has a mad civility meltdown on this thread, so I'm not tempted to do that, plus he does so much work in article space I find it difficult to assess whether or not such a block would be a net negative for the project. Plus blocking Checkingfax won't actually help you get the article passed through FAC. All that said, I'm going to drop a note on his talk telling him to lighten up a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. First: While I appreciate that my experience isn't a typical one, I assure you that lots of my friends and colleagues have very strong opinions on citation formatting! More seriously, though: I do not know whether blocking Checkingfax will help with the FAC; that's not my motivation. What I do know is that it will (at least in the short term) stop his/her edit warring, and perhaps hammer home that their actions are problematic (something the user has done her/his best to ignore so far). I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, citation formatting really isn't that big a deal, but we have a problem when someone who literally doesn't know what a citation style is has taken it upon themselves to review citation formatting at FAC and make large-scale, script-assisted edits to citations. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I have reverted the most recent edit and am about to drop a note on their talkpage. Since at least *two* editors disagree with their citation changes they will now need to seek consensus on the talkpage to make said changes. Suggest this is closed until said discussion is had. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I note that, in accordance with both WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, the user was already obliged to seek consensus or at least engage in discussion. There was discussion, but it wasn't exactly productive. My takehome message was that Checkingfax did not know what a citation style was, and that he had no interest in learning. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with this observation that you posted to CF, visible on your talk page: "I have tried to explain why you are mistaken. You have now chosen to disengage on the grounds that I am not being "collaborative" or "civil", and that I am "belittling" you. This, of course, is untrue; you are clearly very uncomfortable with being told that you are mistaken, and would rather make vague accusations of wrongdoing." I've seen this happen with this editor, even when an admin, and in this case two admins, try to explain policy or guidelines to him. CF does a lot of rapid automated or semi-automated editing but apparently not a lot of content work so there are many policies and guidelines he is unfamiliar with, and I've seen him get defensive and reactive and edit-war instead of trying to understand the relevant policies or guidelines when he is apprised of them. WP:CITEVAR is very clear in that citation styles are not to be changed without discussion and consensus on the article talk page: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." Since I see no such discussion or consensus on the talk page or FAR, and on the contrary everyone including the article reviewers and another admin are backing you up, it should be time for CF to receive a directive to back off, and a warning that if they do not they will be blocked. In my opinion you should restore your preferences as they originally were, and move forward. If there is blowback from CF, then he should be blocked at that point. But I think he should probably be given the opportunity, now that this is at ANI, to voluntarily stand down and desist before a block happens. Softlavender (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• The first thing I found on Checkingfax's talk page of note was Talk:Planned Parenthood/GA1 - that really doesn't sound like somebody who does "not a lot of content work" if you ask me. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would be interested to here Softlavender's definition of "a lot of content work"... Of CF's contribs, nearly 15,000 edits (60%) are in article space. FYI, etc. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, you might want to review WP:NOTHERE. EEng 12:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I believe they are referring to Checkingfax's editing which tends to the gnome/semi-automated fixes than to actual content creation. Both are in article space but the 'content creators' tend to get picky about the distinction ;) (This is not to suggest their work is not needed or useful, a large amount of times I see them they are adding/fixing refs, a very valuable task. However in this case they are dicking around with citations expressly against CITEVAR) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, automated and semi-automated edits to article space; not a lot of content creation. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie: If you check the amount and nature of his edits to the article [92], you'll see it is not content work. He has added less than 8.5% of the text of the article (mostly citation text, etc.) [93], and most of his edits are of the automated and semi-automated technical type -- filling out refs, disambiguating, etc. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If I had the sysop right, I'd look at the situation, see edit warring, block all edit warriors, and move on. There is a well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path, this is no doubt known to both editors, and nobody used it. And I don't buy the idea that behavior standards should be lower for high contributors. Didn't when I started three years ago, don't now, probably never will. So no RfA in my future. 2¢ ―Mandruss ☎ 10:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Support ...Mandruss's RfA _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, if you think that I have engaged in edit warring, I'd be interested to hear why. As was explained in my initial post: Due to the errors it introduced, I reverted (in accordance with the BRD cycle) the user's initial changes. I was then reverted; as explained, I then engaged in a very long and frustrating discussion with the user on my talk page. The user said that they were disengaging. Given that they had not provided a reason for changing the citation format, and given the guidelines over at WP:CITEVAR, I changed the citation style back to my preferred version. The user then changed it back, citing, of all things, WP:CITEVAR. Where do you believe I have gone wrong, here? Or was that not what you meant by "both" editors? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, my views appear to be inconsistent with the prevailing community views on this, but here's how I look at it. CF's first re-revert started the EW. At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere, but instead you engaged in a mostly one-on-one battle with CF. Then, eventually, you "then reverted to the original citation style", in violation of WP:EW "'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." Thus you participated in the EW. In my warped view. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"At that point you could have sought consensus somewhere" Please tell me what I should have done. Start a request for comment? "Hi everyone; I'm starting this request for comment to make sure that WP:CITEVAR applies. A user has changed the citation style in this article; now, discussion with them has failed. They've illustrated that they don't know what a citation style is, and denied that they are changing it, and now said that they're not going to engage any further. Can I please get consensus to change it back?" I'm sorry if that comes across as sarcastic; I'm genuinely not sure what it is that you're suggesting. I stretched my ability to assume good faith as far as it can go; I gave the user a chance to explain why they had changed my citation style, and then, when they displayed their ignorance of the issues at stake and said that they were disengaging, I reverted- in accordance with WP:CITEVAR, which is the relevant guideline here. And you think I should be blocked for that? Should Only in death also be blocked? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The first choice would ordinarily be the article talk page, but it looks like that wasn't an option due to low interest in the article. The next step in my opinion would be to review WP:DR, which would lead you to its section, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. Multiple options there. But neither the FAR page nor your user talk page seem like good places to seek consensus, since they both lack the necessary quorum for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Violating WP:CITEVAR (and also creating new errors thereby) isn't a content issue, since formats aren't content. So I don't think WP:DR would have been appropriate. I do agree that keeping all of the discussion on the article's talk page would have been and is always the best policy, even if it seems "cluttery" (it needn't have been on the FAR page, it could have been right on the article talk). Softlavender (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Considering that Wikipedia:Citing sources is a content guideline, I don't see how violating CITEVAR is not a content issue. In any case, every content dispute is about someone claiming that someone else is in violation of some policy or guideline. The purpose of DR is to determine whether that assertion is true or false. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At one point should I have gone to the dispute resolution page, please? When Checkingfax first made a mess of the article? When (s)he reverted my revert? When (s)he started a thread on my talk page assuring me that (s)he could explain (and, to be clear, it was the other user who chose to start the discussion there, not me)? When it became clear that (s)he didn't know what (s)he was talking about? When (s)he claimed he was not interested in discussing it further? Or some other time? And at what point should I have been blocked, please? I am left feeling that your expectations are unrealistic. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Look, I've already stated that my views are probably inconsistent with the community's. That means they are irrelevant. I expected to make the one little drive-by comment and be done. I apologize for wasting time and space. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What or which "well developed, adequately documented dispute resolution path" are you talking about here? We have two guidelines, WP:CITEVAR and WP:BRD, both of which were repeatedly violated in spite of repeated explanations and discussions and examples of the problems being created. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My reply above might partly answer your question. The main thing is failure to use the tool called consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Mandruss, I don't think you've looked (or looked closely) at the extensive discussion on the FAR page [94] and on JM's talk page [95], which JR immediately engaged in after CF's re-revert. Those lengthy discussions were in my view attempts to seek consensus on JM's part, and CF seemingly kept changing his intentions about whether he was in agreement or not or what the facts were or what the nature of the issue was. (Ideally, all of these discussion should have been on the article's talk, and this is a good example of why content discussion should not occur on user talkpages, but even so, JM did in my mind attempt discussion and consensus.) Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's my problem. This edit from Josh is similar to one of mine where I lost my temper a bit with someone who I thought was doing hit and run editing. The subtle, but important difference, is my edit summary ("if I thought adding a dot would make a SHORTENED footnote easier to type I'd have done it myself") is referring to the content (albeit in a not very civil manner), while yours ("Your "cleaning" and "fixes" have already made a mess of one article, you can stay away from others") is directly about the editor. That makes it difficult to come down one side or the other when considering any administrative action, as it has to be fair to all sides. Blocking everybody is one way of being fair, but the problem with doing it to established editors is you end up with a big stink kicked up from third parties (indeed, I would say the problem is the reverse of what Mandruss says - it's not that we have lower standards for established editors, it's rather you can more often kick a newbie punitively and get away with it!) A 24 hour full-protect and talk page notice (recent example) is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The user, while I was explaining (or doing my best to explain) why their scripts were problematic, decided to apply their scripts to a related article. That's a display of poor judgement at best, downright provocation at worst. I found error after error in their script assisted edits in other articles; I thought it was fair to assume that there were going to be errors in that one too. My comment were indeed directed at the editor, but I think they were quite reasonable; someone messing up articles with sloppy scripts shouldn't be applying those same sloppy scripts to other articles; especially not when they are at that time engaged in discussion about how sloppy their editing is. Your suggestion that I could be blocked or that the article could be protected is utterly ludicrous, and an illustration of why I hate these noticeboards so much. I am reaching out (in desperation) for assistance in dealing with an incompetent and disruptive editor. I'm getting some help- I appreciate the revert and the warnings left on the user's talk page. But I also have a variety of people talking about blocking me for edit warring and making jokes about supporting each other at RfA because they'd be willing to block me. This is not a productive environment. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie: You're singling out one edit summary, but this situation consists of dozens of edits and lengthy discussions and repeated denial of the situation/facts/guidelines. I don't think one edit summary outweighs that. You've been comparing this situation to your own experience but in this case I think you need to step back and just look at the longterm disruption instead of "what would Ritchie do [or have done]?" Softlavender (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides, and it's something I emphasise with as it's easy to get frustrated when you have put a lot of work into an article only to find somebody make changes you don't think are particularly required. However, in my view, Josh has come across a little too confrontational; above he's taken exception to being blocked, when I've not said that (I said a block would be unhelpful). ANI isn't "requests for punishment", it's a way of getting administrators to look at conduct disputes and see if they can resolve them so people can get back to work. (alright, it's actually closer to the Slough of Despond, but one can dream...) Anyway, Checkingfax has been told about this thread and I'm awaiting a response; we'll see what happens when he replies. Patience. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"I appreciate there has been frustration over this, probably from both sides". Yes. The difference is that the other party has displayed ignorance of the issues at stake and an unwillingness to follow the guidelines. "[C]hanges you don't think are particularly required" is something of an understatement when it comes to the edits they have made to the articles I have written. And do you seriously think I am behaving inappropriately by "[taking] exception to being blocked"? I suspect you'd take exception to me saying that you should be blocked, too. (And please don't try to wriggle out of it. You raised the possibility of blocking me, even if only to reject it. And you're not the only one in this thread who's done so.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Rightyho, this isn't getting anyone anywhere. Edit warring took place, misused edit summaries happened, and dispute resolution wasn't sought before this drama board was used. Time to step back, everyone. Let Checkingfax have an opportunity to contribute to this thread. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is everyone pretending that this is some kind of content dispute that needed a thirty-page RfC to determine? This is a disruptive and incompetent editor. I am out. I am done. I will not comment here further unless addressed directly. It's clear that there is no chance of anything resembling resolution. I'm sorry I asked for help. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well. That seems overly harsh; although it does indicate why you perhaps did not get the 'help' you wanted. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And it is incredibly lopsided to bring this directly to ANI and expect a block to be dished out to someone who hasn't edited for nearly six hours. That's called a punitive block as, right now, Checkingfax is neither harming Wikipedia nor had a chance to engage in this thread. It looks wise for Josh to leave it alone for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Resolutions do not always mean the resolution you want. Actually I think Rambling Man described this thread aptly as "Drama Board". What is up drama board nation, I'm your host Keller Keemstar, let's get rooooight into the news... honestly if even one person has a chuckle at that then I have done my duty. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is another sad and sorry case where the onus has fallen on the reverter to justify his revert, instead of being on the newcomer to justify his edit that caused the dispute. This is a failing of Wikipedia that leads to great frustration. The 3RR rule is weighted entirely against the protector of longstanding content - he reverts first, so he reaches 3RR before the newcomer who made the edit. The way it's set up is an abomination. Akld guy (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Except that neither editor involved is exactly a newcomer, both of the editors involved here are experienced editors and ought to know the policies that they're applying. Besides, no point beating the dead horse, especially given that the horse is not even around. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disagreeing with some of the comments above, I think J Milburn was well-justified in posting to this page. That said, I agree that there isn't much more to say until we hear from Checkingfax. I ask Checkingfax to respond not just to the issue regarding this specific article, but to the more general question of how he deals with articles that employ a permissible citation style that is not the one he prefers, and whether there are issues with his scripts that would warrant adjusting them. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, NYB. WP:CITEVAR is a clear guideline here, regardless of some other's feelings about citation styles. People here may disagree with it, but it's still a guideline that should usually be followed. I'm disappointed in some editors here for not seeming to recognize that. As such, J Milburn was completely justified in reverting Checkingfax—who I might remind you came onto the pages of his own volition and started editing disruptively. So talking about J's edit warring, Mandruss, may be true but it's hardly the point.

Ritchie333, calling J "confrontational" is like the pot calling the kettle black, given your entrance into this discussion (which was very needlessly combative). Also, Checkingfax is in no way, shape, or form a newcomer.

The Rambling Man, you've clearly missed the large amount of discussion between these two editors on this topic. While I appreciate the desire to follow policy for policy's sake and have the discussion on the article's talk page, it's pretty silly to dismiss the dispute resolution already attempted by J (he certainly followed WP:BRD). Of course, the amusing thing is that Checkingfax is violating an approved guideline, and we're telling a clearly frustrated J to go to dispute resolution. Like both sides have legitimate points. Which they don't. WP:CITEVAR, again.

ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes. Whether or not J should have asked for a block, don't shoot the messenger for bringing a legitimate dispute here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What I most objected to was the request to block another editor when (a) he wasn't editing (b) he wasn't given a chance to respond here. If there's a long history beyond that already noted by Josh above, then I'm sorry to have missed it, but simply popping up here to ask for a block doesn't feel appropriate until all parties have had a chance to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) "ANI is supposed to be a place to tackle editorial disputes" - sorry, it isn't - that's WP:DRN or talk pages. As Checkingfax was not committing obvious vandalism or BLP violations (or any of the other things that WP:3RR exempts from), then all behaviour should be looked at. I'm sorry you feel we're having a go, we're just trying to work out who has done what and work out how to close this down gracefully. (And what TRM said). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Fine, then say that next time (Redacted). This may come as a shock, but there's a lot of pages around here and we can't all be expected to know which one is perfectly applicable to our particular situation. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed, while you have the chance, at the very least retract the personal attack from your comment. Also, as has been repeatedly said, wait for Checkinfax to respond. All these comments are redundant and don't help to solve the dispute (like at all). Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(ec) If you're referring to "Almost all of these do not give a flying toss about citation formats", I think you've misunderstood what I was getting at; I was merely sympathising with J's situation, having been in the same boat myself, and suggesting that edit-warring over citation templates wasn't worth worrying about. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies if I misread your comment, Ritchie333. I'll redact my comment above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Propose temporary thread closure: nothing is likely to be done until CF arrives, and now we can sit back and watch two admins scrap it out I suggest this as a far more dignified stance for us all. Striking out as seemed to have a certain soporific affect, intentionally or otherwise... _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• I haven't read all of the above. Josh nominated an article for FAC (which can be a nerve-wracking, time-consuming process) and Checkingfax arrived and started changing his citation style over his objections. That's a violation of WP:CITEVAR and of standard practice at FAC. Checkingfax then went to another article Josh had written and did the same. So that needs to stop. I can't see a need for a block, but I hope Checkingfax will agree not to do this kind of thing in future. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: If Checkingfax could poke his head in here right now at his earliest convenience, as a demonstration to the community that he recognises its concern, that would probably be a start. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Checkingfax

Josh Milburn's Featured Article promotion request for Alasdair Cochrane's textbook is moving along quickly. All the reviewers are engaging collaboratively with Josh to that end. A lot of red herrings have been brought up in this discussion. This report is a distraction to Josh that he does not need.

This edit which Josh shotgun reverted introduced no "problems" nor did it change any citation styles. Neither did this one in another article that Josh shotgun reverted. "Shotgun" refers to wholesale reverting rather than reverting objectionable edits discretely. There was no engagement from Josh prior to either of the shotgun reverts. Administrator, Wikipedia Blogmaster, former Signpost Editor-in-Chief and Wikipedia editor The ed17 shotgun reverted the second one again citing BRD in his edit summary which is ironic because he was reverting a reverted edit without discussing it with me and he still has not. I went to his talk page immediately to discuss the reversion but he has not responded to me. He has offered no reason to justify the revert. I have never had any contact ever with Ed on Wikipedia and I am not sure why he became fixated on this nor why he has not been willing to discuss this with me (in spite of his BRD edit summary request).

As an essay, WP:BRD carries no obligation to follow it, and there are numerous counter-essays using it. In spite of that, I went right to Josh's and Ed's pages to discuss my revert or theirs.

The Bibliography of An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory, the main article at the root of this AN/I, has 22 references. 21 of them are in citation template style and one of them is in plain text style. I pointed that out to Josh at the FA review and left him to fix it which he did not. He said it was throwing an error. After some time passed I figured out a way to remedy it and harmonize the citation style but I used the {{cite book}} citation template (like the 3 other Garner books) instead of the {{cite journal}} citation template (which was more germane) and Josh reverted it instead of simply changing the word book to journal.

The 2nd bullet point of WP:CITEVAR guides us to stay with templates consistently if templates are in use which they were by 21:1.

When I went back in to change book to journal in that one bullet item I made a blunder and edited from an old page version. That fact is impossible, AFAIK, to glean from the Diff of my most recent edit. Even in its imperfection it did not cause any problems or change any styles. It just needed to be cleaned up and still does. My only intention in that edit was to edit that one reference and here we are.

Josh is under a lot of stress and I am sorry to have exacerbated it with the above mentioned blunder.

The way the Bibliography metadata is currently formatted does not allow usable COinS parsing of the metadata. No change in citation style is needed; only tweaking the parameters.

I am here to build an encyclopedia and look forward to getting back to putting my shoulder to the wheel. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COinS ability to parse metadata from the article is not relevant to changing another person's citation style. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The claims that Checkingfax makes are transparently incorrect. Checkingfax's initial edit, which (s)he claims in the post above "introduced no 'problems' nor did it change any citation styles", clearly changed the citation style in the article (it also introduced other problems, but that's not the point of this thread). Compare the bibliography before the user's edits to the bibliography after the user's edits. I have explained this to the user multiple times (see here, for instance). They point blank refuse (or are unable) to get the point. I hope this is illustrative those in this thread of why I have found this situation so frustrating. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• These kinds of disputes are why people think Wikipedia is ridiculous. I suggest that:
  • if User:J Milburn defends their behavior at that article one more time, they receive a 24 hour block.
  • User:Checkingfax should weigh in here and acknowledge they made a big mess of things. If they don't recommend I 24 hour block for them. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC))

Can I point out the double-standard I'm facing here, please? I have received quite considerable criticism for calling for a block of a disruptive and incompetent editor. Yet others are apparently free to land in this thread and throw all kinds of shade at me, and call for a block for me for laughably spurious reasons. Not only that, but others will then joke about supporting them at RfA. Why do I have to tolerate this? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I propose a 24 hour block for J Milburn for an inability to STFU and listen to the community, more nicely described in WP:IDHT. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog: That's a completely unhelpful suggestion. In general, you are making far too many references to blocking. I suggest that you leave this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • +1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

WIthdrawn. Nothing is going to break here as long as people are not listening and insisting What I Did What Was Perfect. But withdrawn and feedback heard. Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

2¢ - I don't think it really matters that much who was right (or, perhaps more accurately, the degree to which JM was right, or whether JM could've edited rather than reverted). Differences of opinion were had, mistakes were made and acknowledged. The core of the problem is just WP:BRD. Yes, it's an essay, but based on a model that has pretty broad consensus. During an FAC, that pretty broad consensus should be considered even consensusier. If you make edits to an article at FAC (doesn't really matter if they're all that "Bold") and someone working on the page Reverts, then take it to the talk page and talk about it until consensus consensusizes. Doesn't seem like any action needs to be taken unless edit warring continues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I wish mistakes were acknowledged. Checkingfax is still posting to various places making the same insistences that (s)he has been making all along and displaying the same shocking levels of incompetence. Check out this post, for example, made just after I went to bed last night. Still showing the same ignorance of what a citation style is, and still insisting that her/his actions were legitimate. (S)He has learnt and acknowledged nothing. I've learnt a lot about Wikipedia, and I've acknowledged my mistake in hoping for anything productive to come out of this board; unless that's what you're referring to, I think you have a too-optimistic view of what has been achieved here. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Josh Milburn, Checkingfax does not acknowledge mistakes, and he routinely indulges in self-justification and misrepresentation of guidelines and policies. So do not expect him to acknowledge any error, mistake, guideline violation, etc. Your goal was to stop him from disrupting and changing the article and your other articles. This has apparently succeeded, and there are eyes on the article now. I suggest you stop tracking CF's edits, and let this thread be closed. Softlavender (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

All this dispute seems to be over Josh Milburn's insistance on calling "using the cite templates badly" a style. These templates, when used properly, produce Citation Style 1, probably the most common citation style on Wikipedia. But "used properly" includes splitting out author names into separate first and last name parameters. This produces a consistent style, usable metadata, the ability to link to the citations by the harv series of templates, familiarity for readers, and a consistently designed author name ordering that is unambiguous to read. Instead, Milburn thinks that using these templates with the |authors= parameter, with authors formatted in a mishmash of forward and reversed orderings and with commas used both to separate parts of some names and to separate names from each other, is a separate style that should be protected. At least, that is the only difference I noticed in the comparison he posted at the top of this thread. This is WP:LAME and I have no sympathy for Milburn's position. If gnomes want to go through cleaning up Citation Style 1 templates so that they generate proper Citation Style 1 references, they should be left free to do so. That's not changing the style, it's just good gnomery. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I don't care about whether I am using the citation template "right". I care about how my citation looks. That's what a citation style is. That's what the other user changed; "lame" or not, they edit warred with me despite WP:CITEVAR, despite repeated explanations and despite their wilful and continuing ignorance of the issues at stake. Are you seriously suggesting that because I'm not using the citation templates "right", my citation style does not warrant protection by WP:CITEVAR? And people are allowed to edit war with me all they want? What policy is this based on, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Let's just be crystal clear about this. Let's say you come along to an article and there is one citation. There are no templates, because this is a utopic world in which nobody cares about templates. That one reference is formatted like this: "Smith, John and Jane Jones (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press." As a good Wikipedian, you know that you can't change citation styles. But you can be a good gnome. Pop quiz: are you allowed to change the one reference to "Smith, John; Jones, Jane (2000). Stuff. Oxford: Oxford University Press."? Because I'd say that that (which is what Checkingfax did to the article in question) would be changing the citation style. But you've just called that "not changing the style ... just good gnomery". No doubt people will want to tell me that this post misses the point or is combative or something (and five points to the first person who comes up with a reason to block me for it...) but it really is this simple. Templates or no templates (and if it really helps, any gnome is welcome to remove the citation templates altogether provided they leave my citation template intact) another user has arrived at an article I've written, changed the citation template and then edit warred with me to keep their preferred version, all the while displaying real ignorance. I've come to AN/I for help, and faced all kinds of criticism and abuse and had calls for me to be blocked. What do you think I should have done? Given the other user a barnstar for their gnome work? Josh Milburn (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I can explain what David Eppstein is talking about, and also why J is getting upset about it. The reason we like to use author1=, author2= (and, optionally, in combination with authorlink1, authorlink2...) is it means some nice bits of metadata can be parsed easily from an article and re-used elsewhere, as David says. The problem with this is relating to the difference between a program model and a user model. The essay I've just linked to explains the context, but in short, David is asking J to change his user model (editing Wikipedia as free text) to match the program model (structured text with a context-free grammar for the lexers and parsers for templates). This is a remarkably hard thing to do for human beings, especially when they do stuff in their spare time for a voluntary project (if this were not the case, command line interfaces would still be widely used as they were in the early 1980s and graphical user interfaces wouldn't have been seen as revolutionary as they really were). So it's small wonder that J is getting frustrated.

The alternative, is of course to change the program model to match the user model, and I'm certain that if Google threw a couple of talented software engineers at this, they would come up with a way of parsing metadata out of articles without requiring the basic user editing model to change. It might not be an easy parsing algorithm, but computer software is quite amenable to changing its behaviour if you reprogram it, without complaining too much. However, we can't work with what we want, we have to go with what we're give, and I think it's fair comment to say that the technical bar for WMF staff does not match Google's.

tl;dr - you're both right in your own way, this argument is going nowhere except to remind people to watch out for edit-warring. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that WP:CITEVAR specifically encourages, "Fixing errors in citation coding, including incorrectly used template parameters, and <ref> markup problems: an improvement because it helps the citations to be parsed correctly." It goes on to clarify the meaning of citation style as "major citation styles, e.g. parenthetical and <ref> tags, or replacing the preferred style of one academic discipline with another's." I'm no expert in this area of policy, but I'm struggling to see J Milburn's understanding of it in quite such black-and-white terms as he obviously does; I think the changes at the core of this dispute are at least arguably in line with the guideline. Neither editor seems to have particularly covered themselves in glory in the way this dispute has been carried out. I'd suggest Checkingfax go and make a coherent, polite argument for why his improvements are improvements, not violations of policy and appropriate at this stage of FAR, and that J Milburn consider that someone else's edits to the article may actually be an improvement. GoldenRing (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe this is a stupid question but @J Milburn: are you using a standard well known style, to some purpose, or is this just your personal aesthetic preference? I really could see no significant differences between the two samples you gave and I would be inclined to say use the citation method which allows the project to be improved by being able to obtain and use metadata. Jbh^Talk 12:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I did try and discuss peripheral matters yesterday with @J Milburn: but he deigned not to reply _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at a selection of my Intl. Relations and Pol. Theory books and they indeed do use Smith, John and Jane Doe style for multiple authors. I do, however, think that, as this article is for use on Wikipedia, it would be best for the project that Josh show some flexibility to use the templates in such a way that allows data scraping. Jbh^Talk 19:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

My view is that when an article contains a statement (maybe on the talk page, or perhaps in an HTML comment) that it uses a certain well-known stye that is in use in many articles and/or the outside world, editors should follow the style manual or other instructions associated with that style (for example, APA style or The Chicago Manual of Style). The appropriate manual or instructions may also be implied if the article adheres much more closely to one well-known style than any other. In the case of the cite family of templates, they form a well-known style with instructions at "Help talk:Citation Style 1" and the documentation pages of each template. Making an article adhere more closely to the manual or instructions for the well-known style is not a violation of CITEVAR.

That does leave open the possibility of a sub-style, where some detail that is not specified in the style manual is made consistent within an article. For example, the instructions for the citation templates leaves some flexibility about whether an institutional author should be listed in the template as the author or the publisher. But I believe the instructions are clear that it is preferable to list multiple individuals with the |firstn= and |lastn= parameters rather than listing them all together with one |author= parameter. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am of the view that this issue is as resolved as it's going to be. Other users have taken up discussion with Checkingfax about possible problems with her/his scripts, edits and conduct at FAC. I am optimistic that these will be productive. I have no intention to engage with the user further. Some final comments from me: 1) I appreciate people (or, at least, those who have made an effort to look into the issue) having taken the time to comment in this thread. 2) I can concede that I was over-hasty in calling for a block. 3) I have decided that I will avoid using citation templates in the future. 4) I have found this thread and associated discussions incredibly stressful. I hope I do not have reason to come here again. 5) My sincere apologies to anyone who asked me a direct question that I have not here answered. If there are any issues outstanding, colleagues and friends are always welcome on my talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Gaberz.Jackson and use of user talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all, I recently came across User:Gaberz.Jackson and saw that they have used the user talk page as some sort of social network. The page history also shows other IP addresses editing the talk page. I blanked the talk page because there was some links posted. I don't think this user is her to contribute usefully, rather than just use their user and talk pages as discussion. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Presumably that IP is either the user in question or the so called "linley". As for the talk page, any potentially identifying information is still available through the view history function. Checking the contributions shows that no edits have been made outside of the user and user talk page. I have to agree with LuK3, don't expect any useful contributions from the user. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted under WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't want to block the user right now since the registered account hasn't edited in five years, but if this attack stuff persists we can do that and/or lock the page. Katie^talk 15:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to leave both users a note pointing out that this is not a proper use of Wikipedia and especially not leaving messages using other people's full names. I can do it myself but not for a few hours, so let's see if someone else reading here beats me to it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wilco, since I'm still here. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done one userpage, the one mentioned here, am not sure who the other user is, somebody else will have to tackle that one. I went for a friendly welcoming approach, I get the feeling we're dealing with a "young'un" here. If anybody needs stern, feel free to take-over. Good night. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The other would be User:Linleybrown. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No problem, more Wilco on the way. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Only noticed how long those chat logs have been around, there's one on LinleyBrown's page which I semi-censored (removing any personal or unnecessary information). Mr rnddude (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, censoring out a first name and a gender isn't very helpful. The most recent edits were by IPs. The accounts haven't edited in 5 years, and blocking them per NOTHERE is perfectly appropriate. Since IPs can create talk pages and presumably can continue using these for their chatter and jokes, I'll semi-protect them. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unsourced content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Parsley Man keeps putting back in to the lede of the article Omar Mateen that Mateen killed 49 and wounded 53. He doesn't provide a specific source, is only saying that the source were somewhere in the #Shooting and death section of the article. But that section is not repeating that Mateen is directly responsible for all 102 victims. This is Parsley Man's last such edit. Please remind him that he has to provide sources. --Distelfinck (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this for real? Look, in that section, it says, "In the end, Mateen had killed 49 people and injured 53 others." It is followed by this citation. However, Distelfinck has made a number of edits in which he/she removes Mateen from responsibility of all 49 deaths and 53 injures in the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and claims that police may have been responsible for some of the casualties:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

These claims were hypothetical and have not been confirmed by any official involved with the investigation, let alone widely covered, for I have not heard of these claims until the edits came up. However, Distelfinck has consistently been rewording sentences in accordance to that, which seems to be a WP:OR move. Parsley Man (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Content dispute but also edit warring... going to look at edits and see if AN3 needs to be filed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like 3 reverts (initial edit, 1, 2, 3). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

All the sources I've seen are saying 49 and 53. Maybe an investigation will indicate some of the casualties came from crossfire, but that's speculation. And no matter what, Mateen is responsible for all of them (including the 50th death, his own, from police gunfire). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I had looked at the wrong version of the article, and therefore failed to see that, as Parsley Man pointed out here, what he wrote in the article lede is indeed a repetition of the article body. Above report of mine is hence inaccurate, and this thread can be closed --Distelfinck (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lofall54

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New user that appears to have been a IP until today is going in and messing up metropolitan areas in Washington/Oregon. [96][97][98] (literally every edit is wrong). My guess is they are going off of their thoughts, and are not sticking to the Census Bureau's definitions on these matters. He also turned a could census designated places into cities, which I'm pretty sure only a vote of incorporation can do that. Left a message on their talk page, but they keep on editing. Needs to be blocked and all edits rolled back. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this too and reported it to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pylonrudy. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Appears the account is related to User:RKBetsy as well, that was blocked ten days ago. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is an obvious Vodkapoise sock.- MrX 11:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is Vodkapoise, now blocked. I don't have time to do all the reverting that's needed unfortunately. Acroterion (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Tony Loiacono repeatedly inserting self-promotional material into article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Tony Loiacono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite numerous warnings and reverts by other editors, Tony Loiacono has continued to repeatedly insert ungrammatical, unsourced, self-serving material into the Drs. Foster & Smith article. 32.218.41.1 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs as proof of this if you can. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course I can: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]. Conflict of interest. Addition of unsourced material. Spam. Edit warring. Need I say more? 32.218.41.1 (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that the editor has been warned by the reporting user, however, when reporting the user at AN/I you also need to notify the editor. I will do that for you right now. Your diffs should serve as enough proof for a reviewing administrator. Also for future reference you can report instances of edit warring at AN/Edit Warring and 3RR. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see Tony Loiacono has had a go at communicating, and has said we can just google the sources. We know that's not enough to meet WP:V, but as a brand-new user, he doesn't. Let's see if he can have a quiet chat here, and hopefully we'll get this sorted out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Let's see if he can have a quiet chat here, and hopefully we'll get this sorted out" does not mean "smack the banhammer on them and tell them to sod off". Jeez.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has reverted one edit that he characterized as vandalism, and did some nepotism with another user against me. If he talk with me before its vandalism characteriztion, thats called consensus, if he did not, by this:can this user be blocked or removing his extra user priveleges? Thank you, BerendWorst (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

1) Diffs please; 2) where have you attempted to discuss this with him before coming here?; 3) you haven't notified him - this is not nearly sufficient. GiantSnowman 09:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Boomerang as although competence is required, the OP shows none, as GS's dif above demonstrates; whilst edit-summaries such as this also suggest that he does not possess the right attitide to contribute to the project collegially. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The diff in question is [108], the only time we've ever interacted to my knowledge. It was a revert of their diff [109], which is clearly not assuming good faith.

I've done nothing wrong, but if BerendWorst persists, they might be looking at a boomerang. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, this was sort of notifying me of the discussion here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a threat against me, i idd not persist and you said that im a vandal. BerendWorst (talk) 09:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. My edit summary says "not needed"- which is correct per MOS:OVERLINK which says that "The names of major geographic features and locations, languages, nationalities and religions" should not be linked. Unlike your edit summary "Screw you", which is much less civil. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It was my understanding from a previous thread [110] that here at ANI we're supposed to say "Intercourse you". EEng 11:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• BerendWorst, everything you've written in this ANI thread is complete bullshit. I suggest withdrawing this ANI thread right now before a WP:BOOMERANG hits you and you are blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
• BerendWorst, linking France in an inbox is generally discouraged per MOS:OVERLINK as said above, and I don't believe it is policy to respond with "micturate you". This thread was not necessary, and to use the old cliche you really need to drop it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree that this complaint is unwarranted, that the OP's response was unnecessary (especially given the extremely minor quality of the revert), and that the OP should withdraw it before a curved stick heads their way. I'm also wondering what all this about "nepotism" is. To quote a favorite film "I don't think that word means what you think it means." BMK (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• Nepotism apparently means "The practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs" according to the OED. Definitely not something I do on here. I think they meant tag-teaming. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And I am a persoon. In your face, normal people! _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought I knew what nepotism meant in a Wikipedia context, but I guess I didn't. I thought that, in a Wikipedia context, it meant writing a conflict of interest article about a family member (and so not an autobiography but still COI). I thought I knew. But I can't read the ESL mind of the original poster. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Damonlamb

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Almost certainly a sock of User:Pylonrudy, User:Lofall54, and User:Vodkapoise. Identical edits to the same articles in "Editor Interaction Analyser". Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vodkapoise. Any assistance in blocking this editor would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Vodkapoise. Katie^talk 21:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Old legal threat discovered on talk page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Contact us#please read carefully there is a legal threat from 2014 i discovered it needs to be deleted as it violates wikipedia policy Flow234 (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Since nothing on that talk page relates to the edit notice in question, I cleared the page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyes re retaliatory edits on BLP page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Although I rarely edit any more, I entered a delete vote at this AfD this morning:

Douglas Ousterhout AfD

Within the hour, the only user who has voted to keep, User:Msnicki, started obvious POV editing of the WP page about me (i.e., James Cantor, not User:James_Cantor):

BLP edits.

Any input would be appreciated.
— James Cantor (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm genuinely surprised by your reaction. I expected you might thank me. There was nothing at all retaliatory. When I see an otherwise content-free WP:PERNOM !vote at an AfD, I'm often curious who this is, the same way my curiosity draws me to so many other articles where I may pop in to read more, start clicking through to the sources and end up doing a little research and cleanup of my own. On your own user page, you make clear you are the one and only James Cantor. You appear to want people to know this so I can't imagine you should be surprised if people go there.

Re: the cleanup I did, you tell me: When you were quoted in the article about self-identified shemales, did you really did mean for your remarks to apply to all transgendered women? I thought that was a tenuous and somewhat inflammatory conclusion, likely WP:SYN, so I replaced it with what I certainly intended as a neutral summary of your position on the actual controversy, which is over autogynephilia, not whether self-identified shemales change their stories, citing your own written, considered remarks, not just something possibly taken out of context by a reporter.

Based on the remarks I cited, I thought you sounded pretty reasonable and I was wondering how you could get into so many fights. I guess I found out. It should be possible to disagree at an AfD without making it personal. I was trying to be nice. Msnicki (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw, I notice that Beyond My Ken has already reverted my edits but without any comment to explain his reasoning. I don't edit war, especially not with people I know like edit warring, so I'm walking away from this one. I don't actually care what we report about Mr. Cantor. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Established article was replaced with description of a newer band with the same name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm not sure what category of problem this is: do we treat it as simple vandalism? The page for the 1980s recording artists Slow Children was completely blanked in late April by what looks like a single-purpose user Slowchildrenpunk, who turned it into a page describing a hardcore punk band under the same name.

Here's the diff: [111]

The current page has been revised repeatedly since then and contains what looks to me self-promotional material, but I don't know of this band and have no opinion on whether they are notable enough to merit an independent Wikipedia entry. Clearly the earlier group does, though, and the page that had stood since at least 2009 has been unilaterally eliminated by the editor's change.

-- BTfromLA (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The two pages in question are this and this, and to be frank I doubt either has the slightest chance of surviving AFD. I note that neither incarnation deigns to include anything vaguely approaching even a single reference. ‑ Iridescent 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The first band are probably notable. Two albums on a major label (Ensign) means they pass WP:BAND#5 and on a casual look, there are certainly sources about them out there. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: The first band *is* probably notable. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Over here we use plural pronouns for bands (and sporting teams). Check out most articles about UK bands :) Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: "Over here"??? How bleeding far from Leyton are you? Up north or something? _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm even further away (across the Channel and way east...) but I just learned that according to note a, even the venerable BBC can't decide which style to use. De728631 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm about ¼ mile from Leyton, and I say the band *is*. RolandR (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not something I'd lose any sleep over, but if I was writing something about a band I'd probably stick with 'are'. While 'Pink Floyd is' and 'Pink Floyd are' both read well, 'the Beatles is' is clumsy and ham-handed compared with 'the Beatles are'. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now restored the article to this version about the first probably notable band. If someone feels like forking out the material about the second band, please do so but I don't see much notability for that one. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, Wikipedia has dedicated pages for singer/songwriter Pal_Shazar, producer Jules Shear and each of their albums. BTfromLA (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've tidied up the page and added a couple of references, so at least it's not unsourced now. Laura Jamieson (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'd fork out the punk band's page as a courtesy if it wasn't such a self-promotional piece of............... self-promotion. Carrite (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:66.25.171.16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to draw attention to 66.25.171.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who I warned on 16 June for making this posting in which they offered a commentary on a recent event. I was accused of being hysterical for my troubles (see here), and most recently in what could be construed as a personal attack, of being someone who will bring about the next world war (see here). I realise the most recent post is some hours old, but given the nature of the topic I feel this should be brought to the attention of yourselves. Given the nature of what was said in the posting I almost mentioned this here on Thursday, but an admin removed the discussion so it didn't seem to be a problem. This is Paul (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Given talk page screeds such as this and this, I suspect the IP is only here to make a point. clpo13_(talk) 23:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I felt some of it bordered on the menacing, particularly the comment that was posted to Talk:Jo Cox, and "It's SJW's like you, and your penchant for speech suppression, that is going to be the cause of the next world war, and given your disarmed state, you'll be the losers. I look forward to a world without you". This is Paul (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that POVW isn't blocked yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, eh, stupid question: why wasn't the user simply reported to AIV? I blocked them. Those accusations, that kind of commentary, is unacceptable. I see that AusLondoner also warned the IP, earlier on: AusLondoner, This is Paul, Clpo13, please remove from those talk pages the offending edits, redact them or whatever, including the unacceptable comment about Islam. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, just been through the edit history and taken out some stuff I thought was either an attack or libellous. At least one thing needs to be run past WP:OTRS since it appears to be libellous. I'm planning to log off for a few hours now since it's late so hopefully someone else can email them in my absence. If not I'll do it in the morning. This probably also needs someone more familiar with US politics to go through the edit history as well, just to be sure I've not missed anything. This is Paul (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• This person has been racisting and right-winging here for a while: the content of their edits suggests it, and certain idiosyncrasies in their edits prove it. I'm going to extend this block. This is Paul, thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chandresh3

Has repeatedly removed a CSD tag on his non-notable autobiography. I have given them two warnings, an initial not to touch CSD tags as the author and a final one after they did it again. They are now clearly edit-warring. Diffs:[112][113][114][115] The first diff demonstrates that they created the page, the other three demonstrate that they are engaging in edit warring and also removing CSD tags. Should I take this here or to WP:3RR? Also I am requesting that an action be taken, whether blocking or just deleting the page. Discretion is left to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry link to the page in question, and has again removed CSD tag. Yeh, I'd like a block to be honest. The page: Orianzgaming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr rnddude (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's fine, but you can also report blatant vandalism such as this to WP:AIV - you'll tend to get a quicker admin response there, providing they have been adequately warned and are continuing the disruptive action(s) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 17:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently at 8RR (as of this post but increasing), so WP:AN3 my also be an option. --Elektrik Fanne 17:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've heard of AIV but hadn't been there before. Will remember for future instances. Thanks again. Also they were at 3RR when I came here, I knew there'd be more but wasn't going to entertain them. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Now deleted, but I'm not confident the article won't reappear. --Elektrik Fanne 17:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I'm thinking, but unfortunately I can't deal with it, I need to go to bed. The discussion has been opened on it, if they try again then they're digging their own grave. I'll be notified in the morning when I log on and find 300 alerts. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now, but I think you're overestimating them. Holding off on the block for now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As my last post of the day, it is 3am here, so I'd be overestimating the threat of a squirrel if it came at me. Best leave it for now and come back on when I'm fresh. Not like I'll miss the AN/Ipocalypse now will I. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

In the spirit of recursion, it happens every day here ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bendybit

Bendybit (talk · contribs) keeps changing mostly science fiction related articles, without any reason. After lvl 4 warning, removed science fiction from Face/Off. Other annoying edits include removing the WP:SF banner (as well as changing the WP:VG assessment for no reason), removing science fiction as a category from the article on Android (robot), and removing "military science fiction". Several warnings have not worked, and user does not communicate at all. @EauZenCashHaveIt:, this is the right place. @Dimadick:, I've seen your interactions with them too, perhaps you would like to respond. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Before I saw this report, I had already decided to block the editor for a while, in the hope that it might prompt him or her to start responding to messages. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I actually have several of these articles on my watchlist, because various anonymous editors are removing templates,ratings, and any mention of science fiction for several months. Most of Bendybit's recent edits seem to consist of deletions. He even removes films from lists about the science fiction and fantasy genres. For example his edit in List of fantasy films of the 1980s consisted of removing 4 films without explanation. Dimadick (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Jo Cox protection?

This British Labour MP and "remain" advocate in the British EU referendum debate has just been shot and stabbed. First reports are saying a well-known British fascist has been arrested. Opinions of level-headed and experienced admins would be appreciated at Jo Cox. There's a bit of editwarring in its history over the last hour or so. Hopefully protection won't be needed, and some targetted warnings with polite reminders about BRD and BLP will suffice. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN has semi'd for 24 hours. Thank you. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Two days, filling a request at WP:RFPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Darn time zones. Thanks. --122.109.101.223 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of WP:Rollback in content disputes

wp:deny
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Clpo13 (talk · contribs) has been using rollback at Ginnifer Goodwin in a content dispute. Our rules on rollback make it clear that such use is abusive: 'Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.' 107.77.192.49 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC) OP blocked for 3RR violation. There's also a whiff of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U? in the air. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC) OP may be blocked however Clpo13 (talk · contribs) has now violated the 3 revert rule using the following edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by 107.77.192.49 (talk): Sock of User:Who R U?. (TW)". To the best of my knowledge 107.77.192.49 is NOT a confirmed sock of Who R U?. Not only would this then be a 3RR violation but it would also be putting the cart before the horse. EditorDownUnder (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Maybe not confirmed, but please take a look at WP:DUCK. Anyway, Clpo13 has only made three reverts, but it takes 4 to violate 3RR. Sro23 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC) True enough, and EditorDownUnder has only a handful of edits (under that name, anyway) and theoretically might not be aware. Although it would be interesting to hear the user elaborate on his statement "To the best of my knowledge 107.77.192.49 is NOT a confirmed sock of Who R U?". As in, what special knowledge does a newbie have about a long-term abuser? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Doesn't make any difference if the editor is only at 3RR, it's still edit-warring.173.216.248.174 (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Banned users are not allowed to edit, hence their edits are subject to reversion. Also, it's funny you just turned up here after not having edited for over 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Wasn't aware that the editor was banned, the IP's talk page states they were blocked. Regardless, the edit was not outright vandalism, so there was no urgency in reverting and escalating to edit-warring.173.216.248.174 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Widr

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'm here to file a complAint against administrator Widr . For the last hour he has bed calling me some very nasty names via email. Example names are whore shit head and white boy and many more names. So I'm requesting action gets taken against him immediately--66.87.151.187 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC) You have a grand total of 2 edits here. And IP's don't get e-mails. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Widr, whom you neglected to notify, has been receiving some extremely unpleasant messages from IPs in the Denver area. By a funny coincidence that's the geo-location of your IP as well. Any special reason why I should not block you? Favonian (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Very similar IP as well. SQLQuery me! 22:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC) 'Propose' Immediate congratulations for Widr on his character analysis; suggest he is less subtle next time. Muffled Pocketed 21:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC) You're assuming the drive-by, IP-hopping OP isn't lying about the e-mails. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:193.60.234.210

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not entirely clear what is going on here. But anon user is repeatedly edit warring with other editors. Has already been blocked once for same. Could someone please take a look into this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.60.234.210 AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This user restored a lot of material to my talk page which I had removed, without explanation and in contravention of WP:TPO. I can't see that their intentions here are good. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP is quick to cite WP:TPO when someone restores content to their talk page, but this obviously doesn't apply to them -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

This IP is deleting content on Ohio State University Radio Observatory without giving any reason, in spite of requests on their Talk page to do so. They are also edit warring on Around the World in Eighty Days. The requests and warnings on their Talk page have been deleted. This IP has been blocked before for the same type of disruptive "editing". David J Johnson (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have explained all the edits I've made. Others such as Mr Johnson have undone them without feeling the need to explain why. I think it's clear who is being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• • Any edits I've made included an explanation. In spite of requests, you have not explained your deletions of my edits. David J Johnson (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
    • User:David J Johnson, I'm sorry, but your explanations ("Revert POV edits by IP.") are not convincing. I am glad that Floq chose to reinstate the IP's edits: I don't know either what "noted" signal is, or how the primary source can verify that the observatory got its "greatest success" on that occasion. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're yet to explain why WP:TPO doesn't apply to you - I'd be very interested to hear your reasoning -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we're not going to get an answer - blocked by JamesBWatson -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Isn't this the classic "best known for IP" kabuki theater? Where he's almost always right about the revert (which he is in this case too), but people mindlessly revert him because he's an IP, and he cannot stand that and flips out, and then there's a stupid ANI thread, and then the IP is blocked, and he goes to another one? ad nauseam? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Circle of Life -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 18:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• Uncooperative, uncivil, arrogant, edit-warring, personal attacks, evasion of an earlier one month block, etc etc. Blocked for three months. If Floquenbeam is right, well we'll just have to block the next IP, and the next... The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The block was necessary, of course, because once he gets revved up there's no stopping it. But the arrogance and self righteousness isn't limited to the IP here; everyone reverting without explanation was being as ass too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I smell Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP too, and Floq is right, half the problem is that people edit war with him without really grasping the merits of the edits, and it just creates ANI thread after ANI thread. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam and Ritchie333: Yes. Quite often the IP editor is absolutely right, and those who revert his/her edits are wrong. The problems are mainly to do with his or her attitude to other editors and how to deal with disagreements, rather than with his or her editing intentions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Not "editing intentions", but "edits", James. If an edit is good it shouldn't be reverted. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Refugees and right-wing claims in an article on Islam

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Jason from nyc (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly reinstating right-wing and Counterjihad propaganda into an article on Islam. The article in question is "Islam and domestic violence", and the disputed content is a section with the alarming title "Violence against non-Muslim women and girls". This paragraph makes a number of claims, one is that there is a rape culture within Islam itself, and second, that this culture has invaded the West. It cites a number of sources: one is an opinion piece from The Daily Caller titled "Sweden Opened Its Doors To Muslim Immigration, Today It’s The Rape Capital Of The West" and another one from Breitbart News. The other references simply do not back the conclusions being made in the paragraph. For example, an article from the The Guardian simply listing the names of individuals who committed crimes is used to advance the claim, based on their Muslim sounding names, that "Muslims have also targeted children in sex trafficking schemes and child rape".

My main issue with the paragraph is that there is zero connection between the sources and their claims and "domestic violence". None. This user in fact admits this but responded with "It is about male supremacy and the wider context is relevant". I feel that WP:OR is being violated here, and I raised my concerns on the talk page here. This user did not sufficiently address the issues and was quick in restoring the content back with minimal changes claiming a consensus is reached (none actually). I do not think there is anything I can do that will make this user listen. There is clear agenda being pushed here. I notified the user on his talk page about this discussion. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC) −

Any reason you shouldn't be paying a visit to WP:AN3? You have, in truth, pretty comprehensively edit warred with almost everyone who has come along on that article, over the last three days. Merely calling out WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV does not grant permission to repeatedly revert. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a vast distortion of my edits. I did not write the section in question. I contributed to the discussion with several editors including Al-Andalusi. All the editors except Al-Andalusi see the need for a background section. This displeases Al-Andalusi and he believes he has veto power. As to some of the individual complaints I agreed with Al-Andalusi on Breitbart News and removed the reference. I also argued that the Guardian article is weak and removed it but as I didn't make the original insertion I added a "citation needed" although I suspect the sentence in question can't be supported. I suggest interested parties read the talk section. By the way, the main reference for the section is a New York Times article, which Al-Andalusi fails to mention. I won't respond to his/her personal attacks. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody claimed you wrote the section. Your insistence on keeping it however is pretty clear. Thus you are held liable for its content, whether you originally wrote it or not. You were fully aware that your sources do not discuss "domestic violence" in any way and the reply to that was that "domestic violence" extended to any violence against women (your first OR). Further, you claimed that "It is about male supremacy and the wider context is relevant" (second OR). You admit that the claim attached to the Guardian reference is problematic, then why did you reinstate it? The NYT source changes NOTHING and hardly supports the wild claims made by the paragraph as a whole. If my usage of "right-wing claims" offended you, then perhaps you should stop defend content sourced from The Daily Caller and Breitbart News. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I removed the Guardian source and it was I, not you, who made the point "Al-Andalusi does have a point with the Guardian article. While the individuals mentioned are Muslims, the Guardian article does not connect that fact with the behavior involved. A better source would be needed." I did not re-instate Breitbart. Why are you misrepresenting my work? Why are you personally attacking me? The paragraph has a reliable source in the New York Times but it clearly needs more work. You have made no attempt to move it forward to a well-written section. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi:, while apparently colorful/figurative, "held liable" might not be the best language for this venue. TimothyJosephWood 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Whoever wrote that section and included it, or reincluded it, deserves a pretty serious trout, to put it mildly. The NYT is the only reliable source in there, and it is misrepresented as lending credence to the idea that Muslim immigrants are basically rapists. Guardian: in NO WAY can the sentence be supported by evidence from the article, not just because religion isn't even mentioned, but also because it is as SYNTHy as we can get--by the same token, we could cite every criminal act by the KKK as supporting the general statement that white Christians are violent racists. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Pings: Amatulic has restored that content also, saying there were reliable sources (back then it was even worse: "The culture of sexual violence is spreading as Muslim populations grow in Western countries"). And Human10.0 thinks that Gatestone Institute, which has been criticized as anti-Muslim, is a reliable source. BTW, anyone who thinks that Breitbart can be cited for this kind of stuff needs to reread and then copy WP:RS and WP:NPOV, 100 times, by hand. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Excellent analysis of how this is a content dispute, there. I'm also personally wary (I have to be) of encouraging edit-warring by agreeing with the general stance taken. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised that an editor who is trying to edit-war "Muslims have also targeted children in sex trafficking schemes and child rape." with a citation needed tag is still editing, to be honest. What next? A source discussing a Catholic priest abusing children sourcing a sentence saying all Catholic priests are rapists? A source about a white American doing something stupid sourcing a sentence saying all white Americans are stupid? Laura Jamieson (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Drmies conclusions. FWIW, the content was added in this edit back in January by an IP editor. That it was ever restored amazes me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies's analysis, this seems to be an issue. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As much as I disagree with OP's logic, and as much as I hate to admit it, he's right about those sources.142.105.159.60 (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Also agree with Drmies. I'm surprised to see so many people finding this section at all acceptable, but there's no need for admin action (other than protection if edit warring continues). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• As much as I enjoy having others agree with me, it's kind of sad it had to come to this: one really wonders why this was in there so long, and why it had to get to ANI before it was handled. And I'll ride my hobby-horse again: if we trust completely, or too much, on news sources (and their internet-drivel-driven derivatives like Breitbart), we will continue to have such POV problems. There is no rush, this is not a news site: use more proper sourcing, such as books and academic publications, and read the whole thing, not just the keyword and the next sentence. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  What's perhaps even more shocking is that we had people edit warring over it and arguing for its inclusion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closure of move request for Sport Aerobics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm asking if someone could close the move request of Sport aerobics to Aerobic gymnastics. If this can not be done or I have not done the proper steps may I please get the instructions on what else I need to do. I appreciate it. :) -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOP.[116] Doc talk 08:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Doc I was not aware of that rule but I admit I broke it and apologize. Would you like me to remove it from one board? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

My statement on that board has been archived and I cannot edit it. I followed the instructions on that page and am now trying to get the page moved. Will you help me?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think that this is really a case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Rainbowofpeace asked at AN on 10 June for the page to be moved and was directed to WP:RM. They started a requested move discussion and now they are asking for it to be closed. Nothing wrong with that other than this is not the usual place to ask for a requested move discussion to be closed. These are simply the actions of an inexperienced editor. Rainbowofpeace: there are a number of people who work at WP:RM on closing discussions listed there and they will no doubt get round to reviewing your request today or tomorrow. If you want to raise this anywhere, Wikipedia talk:Requested moves would be a better place. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Malcolm I'm sorry for not following the procedures correctly I haven't edited wiki for a while and have gotten rusty on the different noticeboards. I appreciate you assuming good faith. I will wait a couple of days. What steps should I take after that? -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that it has now been reviewed and relisted, that will be because there has been no participation in the discussion. I'm afraid that will mean waiting another week or so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extremely uncivil behavior by IP User:203.106.156.98

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See: User_talk:LaMona#17:35:04.2C_19_June_2016_review_of_submission_by_203.106.156.98. User is already subject to blocks (just not in time to avoid this): User talk:203.106.156.98. I'm doubting that limited blocks will work, but welcome suggestions. LaMona (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The IP appears to be blocked. — foxj 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sanity check, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I asked مجتبیٰ (talk · contribs) why they had made a certain, now deleted, edit, and got the reply "Bishonen, hello. I think someone is using my account. I have to change my password as fast as i can. Thanks". So I blocked them, with a note encouraging them to create a new account and take good care of their new password. They're sad now. Was I too strict, or is that what we do? Bishonen | talk 08:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC). PS, they have now requested unblock. If it's considered acceptable to unblock them, I'd be happy to, of course. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

No, you did the right thing, blocking a compromised account. They can say they've regained control of it now and changed the password, but there is no way to know it's really them or the person who took over the account. So unless someone can confirm their identity, I would keep them blocked.--Atlan (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I don't think that the account was compromised. More likely an edit conflict occurred and the user didn't understand that he was over-writing someone else. When confronted with this, he still didn't understand what had happened, and thought something along the lines of "well, i didn't do that, so someone else must have". IMHO, I think this is just a misunderstanding. Rami R 09:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's the right call. Unless they had an SHA security key, or some other way of proving their identity, we really have no way of knowing who is talking to us now. I have declined an unblock request, though anyone else is free to unblock if they feel sufficiently assured by what the editor is saying. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A thought... This user has a curious history of deleted edits, which only admins can now see. If they can identify something from that list from memory, that could be enough evidence of identity - all the deleted edits are from the past 10 days, so they should be able to remember at least one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They've made another unblock request, so I've asked if they can tell us anything about their deleted edits. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They've convinced me they know enough about their deleted contributions, so I've unblocked - but it's now over to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujtaba! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I declined this unblock request after seeing it on IRC. I have no objection if any admins finds a reason to decide differently. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 17:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

They offered more information about their deleted edits after that, which I'm pretty sure only the original owner of the account (or an admin) could have known. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's all moot. They have been blocked by a checkuser, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gadri. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Knanaya

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This ANI is about the article Knanaya, multiple times this has been removed citing defunct accounts and linking them with anything asking a change from the article current libelous point of view. I thought of leaving it, but as a community member I find it hard.

From careful review Editor Cuchullain, has been long disrupting this article with a distorted version he have provided and continuously try to prove his point, WP:POVPUSH as the truth since 2012 to see evidnece: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Cuchullain&page=Knanaya&server=enwiki&max=

In case of any alternative evidence or reference provided he re-butts it with wrong interpretation of policies or blocks. If the talk page history checked long list of community members disagreeing with his "swiderski" source as credible is an evidence if we can accept everyone included. A recent edit made to solve this issue by me was thwarted with 1 year block and revert, this seems unethical and inability to accept incremental changes. The editor continuously plays WP:NOTGETTINGIT, applies for block, then reverts to his edits and later acts all clean, this is part of his MO. This user also canvass' selected admins or tag-teams with selected editors for his means.

To see newer revision of the article with identifiable sources(all can be cross checked using google books): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191

The users common target is editors who hold grudges and uses their user-rights as WP:GOLDENTICKET(editors who gets their way within the community project) like using edit filters to block any communication, reverting talk page conversation, looking for cornering and visibly rendering other editors voiceless in a manner that fits Wikipedia:Competence is required. I doubt their actions are always valid and acceptable, at-least it isn't with the Knanaya article. SpacemanSpiff is such an editor who have performed and further roped in Drimes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=724726554 using some previous grudges with some editors. The article first was blocked by the editor, then when any communications made they were childishly removed without proper explanation and blocked reporting to ANI or talk page conversations using user-rights to discuss in between them to state their actions as correct. A crude method used is citing block evasion as a means for circumvention. SpacemanSpiffs actions were lowly to be considered as an admin, lacked basic etiquette, lacked judgement to review the edit of actions of editor Cuchullain to see she or he was promoting his private interest over the project rather than its expansion. SpacemanSpiff exercised his or hers user-rights to further Cuchullain's private interest. I strongly feel these actions of the admin should be answered.

I also suspect that these defunct or banned editors they talk about are made by themselves to use at situations like this, if so this should be checked by competitive users. Otherwise, there is nothing that explains with this warring reverts and wrongful blocks if it was anything concerning the article.

• If swiderski's material reviewed it can be identified that he himself is unsure of most of what he postulates here and there for taking a safe ground. There are newly published material that openly discredits swiderski's multiple origin story and this is equivalent to calling a child, a bastard, this seems to be a fact the editor secretly enjoys. The southerner reference is also widely misused. Accepting other sources of information and Removing swiderski's material entirely to not invite any future disputes is the only solution. But the active editor Cuchullain in the article continuously holds onto these Wikipedia:Fringe theories.

I strongly hope Cuchullain's massive WP:NOTGETTINGIT of Wikipedia:Fringe theories from 2012 will be popped by removing the article block and reverting the edit to : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knanaya&oldid=724642191 if asked he might even come up with dodging answers, his experience might help him to do this or to twist the policies. But this wouldn't fare well for the article or Wikipedia's thesis statement collaborative edit by the people who use it.

Note1: This ANI mentions editors with long-term experience and it is only natural to show herd mentality, but let them be all civil and well explained within wiki rules and regulations.

Note2:I may or may not be able to further provide responses, but I urge to check the issue and get answers and make changes to the article in question. Even stripping the article from swiderski to a basic article with minimum info is an option rather than filled with nonsense.117.248.60.163 (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Gibberish, wikilayering, and accusations of sockpuppetry. Suggest this be closed before the complainer digs himself an even deeper hole.142.105.159.60 (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything you cant understand isn't gibberish. This is just a complaint, not a hole.117.215.194.175 (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the latest IP sock of Psthomas (talk · contribs) who was trying to post this last week. IP blocked, expect more. Acroterion (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You may use any accounts to satisfy your needs, this doesn't solve the issue about the article. First of all acknowledge the issue, before getting all high and mighty and taunts like expect more, what do you mean by expect more complaints....other than to complain and expect a resolution or edit out the wrong details what can a person do in wikipedia. Thanks for at least giving WP:EHP. A method to solve this is to declare by the article handling editor that these pages are privately handled blogospheres and doesn't reflect the entire truth, otherwise none of this actions seems to be logical.117.215.194.175 (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Irene.emerita

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Irene.emerita has been clearly violating WP:NOTWEBHOST, as all of her contributions have been to her user page. She is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This confirms it. She only wanted to use Wiki as a web host. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User page has been been speedy deleted, and I don't see any other admin action needed here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User behaviour issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm concerned about the editing behaviour of User:Wikiworld2, who had a relatively reputable history of editing mostly on psychology topics relating to addiction recovery between 2012 and 2014 — but after being completely silent through 2015, reemerged this year as a certifiable tinfoil-hat lunatic. I know that's a pretty loaded description, but I don't know how else to characterize edits like these:

• Talk:Rosemary Barton
• This reverted edit to Talk:Compton, California
• Talk:Hells Angels (disambiguation)
• File:HMSSwitchcraft.png, which is being used in Spencer Creek for no obvious reason; that article itself is a complete flaming mess, created entirely by Wikiworld2, which contains content like "Because of the proximity to a major powerline route, the area is a natural destination for those wishing to survey, plan and study area customs, traditions, religion and cultures with respect to the development of self-driving tractors." Er, what the what?
• The addition of this photo to Cambridge, Ontario, as if it were adding anything of value
• The addition of an entirely unsourced pile of content to CJMR that was so explosively inappropriate that I had to revdel it — let me TLDR it for you as "allegations of direct involvement in 9/11" and leave it at that.
• Talk:Whodini
• The last section of Talk:Nigga

I don't know if the user's gone loco, or if an old dormant account got hacked and somebody's doing this for lulz — but either way, I want to ask if anybody else agrees with me that we're approaching editblock territory here. Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• • (Non-administrator comment) I have notified the user of this discussion for you. I'm not sure whether it's WP:NOTHERE, WP:CIR or WP:CHATFORUM, but something isn't as it should be. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just took a brief look but found this, oddly inconsistent with the above. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to confirm that the material at CJMR rev-deleted by Bearcat was seriously wacko conspiracy theory nonsense (covering multiple accusations, not just 9/11) with serious BLP violations. The only source cited was totally unrelated - just a 2003 version of the web site of a Toronto radio station. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• I've had a reasonable look over Wikiworld2's edits of the past few days, and a lot of them are not at all tinfoil hattery, but are still problematic as unsourced or incorrectly sourced additions. One example is this addition to Food bank, where the claimed main article does not exist and the provided source says nothing whatsoever about Muslim food banks - it's just a BBC news story about halal meat. And then there's the masses of unsourced trivia and personal analysis added to Spencer Creek, which has now been reverted. Given a few of Wikiworld2's comments, perhaps a little sensitivity is called for here, and perhaps some friendly guidance might be the way to go - I'm not seeing any attempts to talk about any of these recent edits on their talk page, just a mass of automated notices. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  I've made an attempt to talk to Wikiworld2 on their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  I've had no response, but instead Wikiworld2 created the nonsensical article Wikipedia Live again. I've deleted it again and have left what I think can be considered a last warning. I see no alternative to a block if this continues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  And then they created Portal:African Nuclear Medicine And Weapons, containing the same nonsense as Wikipedia Live, so I've indef blocked for disruptive editing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Innocent victim of collateral damage? Checkusers ahoy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I rather doubt that the person posting the unblock request at User talk:2602:306:B8FE:5F0:3D20:61AC:5767:8324 is an innocent victim of collateral damage, but I suppose it's possible. Could somebody who understands these matters (CU's ahoy) take a look, please? And, if it matters, I have also blocked their range, 2602:306:b8fe:5f0::/64. The same individual (obviously) used a couple of other IPs from it on June 8. Bishonen | talk 10:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

The only collateral would be the people within the household. So I guess it's their little brother who did it! I didn't do any checks since I'm familiar with the nature of this ISP and have modified the block as a result. Hope you don't mind. Elockid ^{Message me} 10:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you blocked the range for a month, what a good idea. Thank you, Elockid. Bishonen | talk 10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A new article recently created

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Dodger67 recently accepted a draft-Constitution-Talca Ramal. I had a big doubt. That IP Address who created that page had mailed me last to last week that this topic deserved an article and he gave me some sources. Later when I Had made a lot of progress and had almost created that article after translating it from spanish wikipedia I mailed it to him. Then he turned the whole game over, he created that draft on the info i mailed him and even submitted it to take credit of the info i mailed him. Most of the content is mine and he has taken credit of it. I request u to change the name of page creator from that IP to mines. He just took the credit which is very bad my name isnt even there. U can even see this chat(heading is- reply to ur message on my talk page) in my archive which will tell u he taking credit only. -- VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Why didn't you inform the other involved parties that you were launching this discussion as is required? _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, as I was mentioned as the accepting AFC reviewer - I have no opinion about or interest in the issue here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: and @Dodger67: I didnot get it what u guys are trying to say that IP just betrayed me and took credit more than 70% of the article is mine! Somebody ought to change the page creators name. This aint fair -- VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OMG varun do you really care about credit!! Im an IP user I obviously dont! take the bloody credit I dont care! Yes you helped a lot I appreciate that, but anyone looking at the true history, ie the start or speaking to Ricky or Huon will know that I created the thing!! I dont care I am an IP user!! but even ask poor Redrose64 (talk) who helped me endlesly and patiently over 3 weeks!

having said that I appreciate your help Varun

Take credit if you want it... but we all know the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.46.20.240 (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As a practical matter, there is no technical means to assign edits from one user to another. Further, we don't keep score - there are no internet points that the IP gets and you don't. If you want your name on the article, go ahead and make edits now. Surely it's not 100% complete and correct, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and WP:SOAP from User:92.3.12.105

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This edit is an example of WP:SOAP; this edit is an example of WP:PA. I would appreciate his actions to be reviewed by fellow users. Thank you. -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A Putinist and a Fascist... that's quite an achievement _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The attacks really are a bit too bad. Blocked for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Siuenti

For the past day, Siuenti (talk · contribs) has been involving himself in edit wars on various film articles, insisting that the plot summaries should include the cast members. I have told him numerous times to read WP:FilmPlot, but he has ignored my advice and claims that I am "inconveniencing readers solely to decrease the work count". - Areaseven (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you may have forgotten to notify the editor, so I've done that for you :) -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask that Areaseven refrains from editing in this area until s/he at least realizes that their is a downside to his/her edits? Siuenti (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe there has been previous consensus at WT:FILM that it is unnecessary to include actor names in Plot summaries if they are provided elsewhere, though I'm admittedly having some trouble finding a specific link. I believe editors would generally agree that in such cases, removing actor names to comply with WP:FILMPLOT is appropriate. A relevant discussion from six months ago can be reviewed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Cast names in plot summaries. My reading of that is that the editors who participated in the conversation felt that when there is a Cast section, including actor names in the Plot section is redundant.

In any case, edit-warring over such is highly inappropriate. WP:BRD would obviously seem the reasonable path to follow in such cases. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would note that WP:FILMPLOT does say specifically, "(Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)". So, if discussion is not occurring, that's a problem, and the guideline as written appears to favor summaries that are within compliance. DonIago (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

So let's have a discussion maybe at WP:FILM and then you can go back to reducing the work word count if you still think it's justified. Siuenti (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to start one. In fact, you probably should have started one before matters escalated to this point. I see no reason to start one myself as I'm satisfied with the existing guidelines. I'd go so far as to say that if you're willing to cease your current editing pattern for now, initiate a discussion on this matter, and then abide by whatever consensus emerges, that there's no need to pursue this further. DonIago (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not too sure that discussion you linked to shows consensus but I'll take your word for it. I'd still like to ask people who think there is no downside to their actions not to engage in edit wars until they have listened to the other side. Siuenti (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

A large number of possible CSD U2s from semiautomation

Hi, I noticed that many of these pages here would qualify for CSD U2:

• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User:
• Special:PrefixIndex/User talk:User talk:  Done

Some of these are sockpuppet notices by other users (who must have mistyped in Twinkle), or misled moves. I believe they should be deleted, but it would take me a while to CSD tag them. Did not want to spam MfD either... unless you think that really is the appropriate venue. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just moved one which was moved to the wrong location while attempting to archive. So some additional manual review should be done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If you use link classifier, it's easy to pick out the redirects, which can just be deleted, vs. the ones which actually should be moved. I am looking at user talk at the moment. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kelapstick: Thanks. I have this bookmarked for now, probably won't be able to get to more of this until tomorrow. But yeah, tons of U2s. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I think stuff like User talk:User:figure8state should just be deleted; twinkle created page that doesn't have any use since the account is blocked. Maybe this should be one of the checks enforced on Twinkle -- preventing "User:" from being added to the username field at ARV - sockpuppet or ignoring it if it is added. One option is to add verified links over to something like Wikipedia:User or user talk pages of non-existent users for deletion. Any admin can then delete the whole list using Twinkle batch delete, this won't bloat up CAT:CSD or MfD. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Most of the user talks are archiving errors, I am almost done fixing them. Haven't looked at the user ones though. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Many of these pages came from Twinkle sockpuppet notices and welcomes. Also, a non-trivial number of these pages came from October 2014, which leads me to believe there was a Twinkle or MediaWiki bug around that time. A couple are automated bot postings or message services delivered to incorrect pages due to setup error. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 06:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I just brought a good number of these to MfD to clarify why they should be deleted, although, truly, they all satisfy WP:U2 as they currently stand without moving. I'm wondering if, after this is cleaned, it's reasonable to add these prefixes to the title blacklist? (Possibly including "Wikipedia:User:" and "Wikipedia:User talk:" as well?) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I deleted that batch as uncontroversial housekeeping because they were obviously created in error, are mostly no longer relevant and the probability of the user reading the messages is extremely small. MER-C 12:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@MER-C, Kelapstick, and SpacemanSpiff: As of this post, there are about 5-6 pages left under "User talk:User:". They've been CSD tagged, or the owner notified. The others have been MfDd or moved. I think this is essentially done. :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair bit of similarly weird stuff in other namespaces apparently too. SQL^{Query me!} 18:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention

KatrinaMcCaffery has requested admin intervention at User talk:KatrinaMcCaffery#Nomination of Oliver Trevena for deletion. I understand she is unhappy that a number of her articles have been nominated for deletion and is alleging WP:HOUNDING. I'm involved in recent actions w.r.t. Ms. McCaffery at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:KatrinaMcCaffery_.26_User:Kittymccaffery and in subsequent AfDs, and so will not venture an opinion here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This user seems to have multiple cases of WP:COI and also WP:MULTIPLE. I do not think it's hounding when you point out issues. Coderzombie (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack to shut down discussion about Omar Mateen's foreign travel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, a discussion about the foreign travel made by Omar Mateen was shut down after an editor used an ad hominem attack against other editors, who supported including the foreign travel information in the article. The editor said that others were engaging in "racial paranoia" for supporting factual inclusion of the foreign travel information, and the editor removed cited references to Mateen's foreign travel from the article. Despite requests that the travel be factually described, the edits were not reverted. This issue could not be resolved on the Talk Page for the Pulse night club shooting, where material or well-sourced information was provided by others. An effort to discuss this with the editor, who is gate-keeping the Pulse night club shooting article, on the editor's Talk Page proved unsuccessful. Is there a protocol to follow when ad hominem attacks are used to shut down discussion about edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maslowsneeds (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• I see no personal attacks in that edit summary or on the talk page. I'll ping InedibleHulk since the plaintiff didn't notify them. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Maslowsneeds: Are you talking about InedibleHulk? If so, you did not notify him of this discussion; I have done so for you. Where is this ad hominem attack? I read the talk page and I did not find any ad hominem attacks about anyone in the section to which you linked. Katie^talk 23:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And what discussion was shut down after said ad hominem? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The editor accused people, who were requesting the inclusion of factual descriptions of travel, of racial paranoia ("it would seem less like racist paranoia"). As noted, references to the travel were removed by the editor, and appeals by people requesting the inclusion of material and cited facts about the travel went unheard, indicating that the requests were not going to be acted upon, despite their merit, revealing that obviously one editor is gate-keeping the article according to one editor's beliefs. I'm not interested in anymore ad hominem attacks from the editor merely by having made this request for protocol. My request here was for protocol for when ad hominem attacks occur as a way to block edits. Maslowsneeds (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

In case my ping somehow got lost, here is something I said to you 12 hours ago: [117]. Perhaps it's worth saying that I have a lot of experience working with InedibleHulk and, while we sometimes strongly disagree, I have never known him to exhibit WP:OWN behavior. Past experience does inform our judgment on these things, and it should. Further, I've been at that same article almost since its inception and haven't noticed any WP:OWN from him there, either. It seems you're the sole beneficiary of his gate-keeping, for some reason. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Maslowsneeds, you haven't pointed at any ad hominems. The "it" in the quote refers to the language in the article, not to ... well, "it" wouldn't really refer to an editor anyway. When attacks occur, one can warn the editor via the usual templates; see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. But, again, there were no personal attacks here, no matter if you may feel that way. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

An editor can be referred to as "it" for three reasons, with different degrees of acceptability. First, the editor is a bot. That is an acceptable use of pronoun gender in English. Second, the editor is suspected of being a bot. That is an aspersion. Third, the editor either is or is said to be LGBTQ. The use of the neuter pronoun for humans is insulting, even if we don't know their gender, and even if they don't want to specify their gender in the usual way. However, "it" did apply to the language. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The language being invoked here is that advocating for the inclusion of travel information is tantamount to engaging in racist paranoia. How is that not an ad hominem attack on people suggesting the inclusion of factual information about the travel ? This isn't about feelings, and I don't get where you are coming from about that, except that by hiding behind the semantics of "it" is pretty weak. Nobody was requesting that travel information be included with any opinion or editorial connotation, malevolent or otherwise. The requests being made was for inclusion of factual description of the travel. The fact is that the spectre of racist paranoia was invoked by the editor. Nobody discussing edits chose to invoke inflammatory language, except the editor, who removed the cited travel information and who is apparently gate-keeping the article.Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

If that relatively innocuous comment were grounds for an ANI complaint, none of us would spend much time anywhere else. Also, I now gather that "the discussion was shut down" meant something other than the common interpretation, which is that the discussion was closed by an uninvolved editor due to the ad hominem you asserted. That was misleading, if unintentionally so. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not relatively innocuous to accuse those suggesting for the inclusion of factual information about the foreign travel to be inciting racist paranoia. That would be equivalent to me saying that, because the subject matter relates to a hate crime against the LGBT community that, by blocking accurate information about the circumstances of the attack, it would be homophobic of editors to be engaging in the blocking. How would that not be considered an attack ? There is now a supposition on the talk page for the Pulse night club mass shooting attack that it is baiting to be suggesting edits that reflect the foreign travel. If somebody could cite what was inflammatory or objectionable about the original factual inclusion of the travel information that was removed by the editor, I would of course understand that there would be a sensitivity to wording that was objectionable, but nobody is asking for objectional content be included in the article. The suggestion I made was for inclusion of factual information. The gate-keeping editor, who invoked racist paranoia as a reason to remove and not include this information, perhaps that gate-keeping editor can suggest wording to factually describe the travel that is acceptable, so that the wording doesn't trigger any concerns ? Maslowsneeds (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much to add in my own defense. What they said, pretty much. The racist paranoia is in the news, and we can use news sources, but we should just relay their facts, not the angles they take. All basic WP:NPOV stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What does racist paranoia being in the news have anything to do with requests to factually describe the foreign travel ? What kind of (poor) logic is this ? What is in the news is not the cause of the requests for factually describing the foreign travel. Lots of other issues are in the news, like denialism over global warming. Denialism over global warming has nothing to do with requests to describe the factual circumstances of the foreign travel. Maslowsneeds (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef-banned user proxy editing via talk page.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:009o9 was banned per this ANI, and the appeal was declined several times, but the editor is still continuing to proxy edit and engage editors in several talk threads on his talk page, and is additionally still referring to a declined draft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a blocked user could use their talk page to appeal, and failing that, would not retain that access. Also, as this seems procedural, and the user cannot comment here, is an ANI notice still required? MSJapan (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That user is mighty active for an indef-blocked user. Some editors there are cutting him slack. But if he wants to be unblocked, he should post a formal unblock request. Otherwise, he should have his talk page privilege taken away, and his talk page cleared. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Forgot to link User_talk:009o9#June_2016, where he appealed and was declined twice. MSJapan (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When a user is blocked, the only allowable use of their talk page is in seeking an unblock or at least discussing avenues for an unblock, discussions/negotiations of restrictions and the like. If they are up to other, more nefarious, uses such as getting others to proxy for them, then TPA needs to be revoked. Blackmane (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Going to second that. The user isn't just blocked, but community banned. At this point TPA needs to be revoked, and the user needs to follow WP:UNBAN to have their account unbanned, which means waiting at least until this time next year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If this was a normal block it would be one thing, but this is a community ban. I have revoked talk page access and given them a link to WP:UTRS. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourced content removal by User:Jobas

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Jobas is continuously removing large portion of texts from the article Growth of religion while it has been re-written. For instance, he removed Eric Kaufman data here[118] as copyvio but added same here again[119]. He is not adhering to neutral point of view and accusing me of socking. --Karibahar (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I think User:Anatha Gulati, is backed with one of his several sockpuppet (65 he has sockpuppet) accout or (User:Bolialia) was editing in the article Growth of religion, where he made everal Copyvio, i removed all of his Copyvio edit but now anther new user as you can see here, making excally the same edit, cliaming it is re written. Accaully i did it beofre discovring that it was copyvio. Have a nice day.Jobas (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

He is trying to flag me in order to retain his POV edits on Growth of religion.[120]. Karibahar (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Any administrator here can check both of our edits on Growth of religion to decide whether mine is copyvio or User:Jobas is POV pushing.Karibahar (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I went to his page, since your edit were suspicious, it was excally the same edit of the User:Anatha Gulati or User:Bolialia, and was interestig that a new user making the same edits.--Jobas (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No, I just tried to keep the article neutral as you have been removing sourced texts violating WP:UNDUE. Karibahar (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Really beocuse user:Dianna hide the edit of User:Bolialia before since it was Copyvio. Still interesting a new user know all these rules. and make if not excally a fimiliar edits as User:Anatha Gulati (who had so many sockpuppet accouts did before).--Jobas (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be mistaken. I added back only those texts which were removed by you and the page's edit history shows that both your and User:Bolialia's edits were hidden by User: Diannaa. Karibahar (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes since it was problems about his edit. he was making copy past for the edit of Pew study. So sure my edit will been hide too.--Jobas (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why did you selectively remove the texts from the article? Anyway, I will leave this to more experienced editors and administrators. Karibahar (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed what i noticed.--Jobas (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When User: Diannaa already checked and removed the copyvios then why you suddenly started further removing? How this edit[121] is a copyvio of this source[122]?Karibahar (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This exmaple of what i remvoed :

• this edit: flight from marriage” among Arab women." as quoted by David Ignatius. A significant drop of Muslims birth rate has been shown with an average of 41 percent between 1975-80 and 2005-10 which is 33 percent decline for the world as a whole. It also quoted that "Twenty-two Muslim countries and territories had fertility declines of 50 percent or more. The sharpest drops were in Iran, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Libya, Albania, Qatar and Kuwait, which all recorded declines of 60 percent or more over three decades was copy from here.
• this edit: if current trends continue, Islam share of the world’s population would equal the Christian share, at roughly 32% each, around 2070. After that, the number of Muslims would exceed the number of Christians, but both religious groups would grow, roughly in tandem. By the year 2100, about 1% more of the world’s population would be Muslim (35%) than Christian (34%). was copy from here p.7
• This edit Statistical data on conversion to and from Islam are scarce. What little information is available suggests that there is no substantial net gain or loss in the number of Muslims through conversion globally; the number of people who become Muslims through conversion seems roughly equal to the number of Muslims who leave the faith. As a result, this report does not include any estimated future rate of conversions as a direct factor in the projections of Muslim population growth was copy from here
• This edit that i removed was copy from Total Fertility Rate by Religion, Pew study 2010-2015 p.13
• this edit that i removed was copy from Total Fertility Rate by Religion, Pew study 2010-2015 p.60
• This edit that been removed is from p.70

Yes since when it is POV to remove Copyvio.--Jobas (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• None of the above edits relates to me. I already re-wrote the contents which you removed as copyvios. I did not revert your these edits. Even anyone can simply check the source and make the edits which I did. Karibahar (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Karibahar been blocked as you can see here for sockpuppet.--Jobas (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Devotee of Truth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Would someone mind giving an indefinite block to User:Devotee of Truth? Obviously a sockpuppet; the account was just registered today, and (aside from his userpage) has done nothing except complaining at my talk page about something I said at the talk page of an obscure article. Even if that weren't an issue, run a search for davidcpearce (this is a reference to User:Davidcpearce) in this edit and look at the comments in the sentence immediately before the phrase He has no business editing here. We have no business tolerating someone who makes such comments about other users, especially when it's obviously a sockpuppet. Just bringing this here because someone might allege WP:INVOLVED because the user was complaining about something I said. Nyttend (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, this may shed some light on the whole deal: Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Thomas Pogge. Might be a sock of the user blocked there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Threatening to "wage total war" on people is not appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Already indef blocked, but yes, an obvious sock of User:Eminent Jurist. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thanks for the quick response. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Damn it all, doesn't anyone read the classics any more? He was quoting Sun Tzu Facepalm _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In any case, another example of the Wiki-truism that anyone with "truth" in their username is generally not here for the watermelon and fried chicken. BMK (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talkpage vandalism by Anjo-sozinho

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anjo-sozinho distorts text from a talkpage message by another user and insterts his own text As can be seen here Anjo-sozinho has vandalised the text of another user Cristiano Tomás and inserted his own. That is unacceptable behaviour, especially in the light of what is going on here, here, here, here, and what happened in the past. Then there is also this. And we could go on. Reporting this incident. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the timestamps, I'm inclined to believe there was some kind of edit conflict and Anjo-sozinho was trying to put back his deleted post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note to all, this is just a continuation of this conversation [123], which is still active above.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I hadn't noticed the earlier goings on, on that talkpage in time. I deleted this message and section when I did. But what you state was probably the case. I retreat my remarks in this section on this incident altogether. I actually deleted them before you restored them to this page... I don't get to do that??? I'll leave that to you. I also deleted my notification to Anjo on his talkpage. That having been said, I'm not sure what Anjo tried to do there, but in the end his post was restored by you. Which was the right thing to do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, you can close this discussion but you shouldn't be deleting your posts if there are replies to them. Basic courtesy to your fellow editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dylan Hughes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Dylan Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ifcsports (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ifcsports claims to be Dylan Hughes on my talk page and would seem have a COI. He removing sourced content claiming outdated, which may be true, but it would seem that it should be updated rather than removed. The remaining text is unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Ifcsports may be Dylan Hughes and he may not be. He could have legitimate concerns and he may not have any. Keeping WP:BLPEDIT in mind seems a good idea, but simply stating sections are "incorrect" does not suffice as a reason for deletion (let alone an edit-war) but Ifcsports is a new editor and may not be aware of policy. Kleuske (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• "Ifcsports" is likely also a username violation, but I'm on my lunch break. Please inform them. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Eet smakelijk Kleuske (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Quick block needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:JETT RUZ FAMMARTINO. Please block and delete userpages. Definitely not here. Must be a special on tin hats at Walmart. John from Idegon (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Widr (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Hspa.22 (Addition of unsourced material and WP:INCIVILITY)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No idea If he requires more advice or a block!

• Diffs:

[124][125][126][127]

• Incivility can be seen on their contribution. INVISIBLE^knock! 10:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you considered filing a WP:SPI case? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Against whom, Malcolmxl5? _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure where you're replying? I don't know if he's a sockpuppet or not, you can help though! INVISIBLE^knock! 10:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: Yes, he is a sock of User:Saatvik.Jacob Material Scientist, who was blocked indef yesterday by Bbb23. _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh! I'm leaving for now Electricity cutoff, low battery on mobile and blue screen of death (plus sleepy too) @muffled would you please take it to WP:SPI? for me? INVISIBLE^knock! 11:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You got it :) sleep well! _Muffled ^Pocketed 11:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor repeatedly tags talk pages with a WikiProject when they are not participating in the Wikiproject

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See User talk:Ricky81682#Please stop tagging for WikiProjects you are not affiliated with. There's no reason for an editor, let alone an admin, to put up fake notices on talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.227.69 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I still don't get your point, my bad! INVISIBLE^{-Talk with me!} 16:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What kind of a complaint is this, that one has to "be affiliated with a project" to add the relevant WikiProject tags to the talkpage? If I write a biography of a female Turkish boxer, I'll add {{WikiProject Turkey}}, {{WikiProject Women's sport}} and {{WikiProject Boxing}} tags, regardless of whether I'm "affiliated" with any of those projects—this is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. ‑ Iridescent 16:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Noting also that you've, no doubt unintentionally, forgotten to post the required notification, which I've done for you. ‑ Iridescent 16:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whaat a "fake notice" is but there is no requirement that an editor "has" to be a member of a Wikiproject to place its banner on an articles talk page. IMO this thread should be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 16:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that wikiprojects are groups of affliated editors working together on a common interest. They decide the scope of the articles they are interested in. A wikiproject is not the same as a category. If someone who has no intention of taking part in a wikiproject starts tagging articles with that WP, it causes bloat to a WP's scope. The correct method if you want to get a wikiproject involved in an article is to go to the Wikiproject and leave a note/link for them. I have changed the title to indicate the issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Really? So if I write a biography of a Scottish person I'm acting improperly by placing a biography or Scotland wikiproject template on the talkpage because I'm not a formal member? Nonsense. Wikiprojects aren't (or shouldn't be) walled gardens. Acroterion (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC) Generally it isnt a problem. Until someone objects. Then it becomes one. Usually Wikiprojects tag articles because they are actively part of their editing plan. Not just because they happen to be related. There is unlikely to be any problem with your scottish biography one (I seriously doubt anyone involved in the relevant project would object). But ultimately wikiprojects *are* self-selecting with regards to what their scope is. If someone who is not participating in that projects starts interfering with it, it is disruptive editing. The 'walled garden' rears its head when wikiprojects start creating their own notability guidelines, inclusion criteria for articles and so on. But the basic 'What this wikiproject covers' is not part of that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Then the appropriate action would be a polite inquiry, not accusations of "fake notices." I'm not pleased with the perception that non-participants are not welcome, or are interfering with good-faith tagging. This is an open project. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Generally most people notify the project or join the project. Actively tagging articles for a project you have no intention of working with however verges from harmless to really irritating depending on the scope of the project. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I sort of understand the complaint. WikiProjects have their own outline of what articles they consider to be part of their project. By tagging articles with project banners of projects you have no interest in participating in you add to their project workload without consulting them. I also understand the counterargument of, for example, tagging a military history article with WikiProject MilitaryHistory because it would presumably fall under their "jurisdiction" logically. There can be two problems with this however, 1. The project is inactive and has been for some time, the problem ought to be obvious, no workers means no work and 2. The project may not necessarily be interested in all articles that could potentially fall under their jurisdiction, for (a currently accurate) example the historical state of Prussia may be of interest to WikiProject Silesia but not WikiProject Poland (despite the fact that Silesia is in Poland). The point being that automatically targeting an article as being of interest to a particular group could be false. However, I can only this being a problem in egregious circumstances, e.g. tagging all articles on politics as being of interest to WikiProject Chocolate or some such. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This likely does not need admin intervention. The issue is being discussed on Ricky81682's talk page and the IP doesn't appear to be involved outside of starting ANI drama. clpo13_(talk) 16:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects do not WP:OWN articles. Whenever I find an article that has not been added to a wikiproject I take the time to try and find at least one to add it to. WikiP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and that includes adding project banners to article talk pages. MarnetteD|Talk 16:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Its not a question of ownership. If a wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope. If you think it *should* be within its scope, you either contact the project, or join it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If the WikiProject does not own the article, why are you forcing it upon them? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A "wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope" is classic WP:OWN. Please provide a link to the policy or guideline that states that an editor "must" be a member of a project to add its banner to a talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Add away. Add all the things. But if a wikiproject sees the new article added to their list, and decides after discussion (or a review of their rules, etc) that nope, that article shouldn't be tagged, and they remove it – that's fine too. Tagging the article as part of a project is only disruptive when it's being edit warred over. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Precisely, it's only a problem when it's being edit-warred over. I've removed inappropriate tagging (without asking for permission) and I've added where I felt in good faith that it would be appropriate, for example where a project may not be aware of a potentially relevant article's existence. What they do from then on is their business. If it's not appropriate, a polite note is all that's needed. Wikiprojects don't own article talkpages any more than they own articles. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But they do own their banner, and if they say "I don't want my banner on this page" then remove it. You are right though, a polite note is how this should be approached, not going straight to AN/I. However, somebody has mentioned that a random IP has taken this to AN/I instead of the original poster SmokeyJoe, I only just noticed myself. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when does WP:OWN apply to WikiProject scope? a wikiproject is not an article. By your logic I should be allowed to send you notices to improve whatever article I like. If so then please start with Chicken, and when it reaches FA, go on to Cow. Thanks I expect a response soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about chickens, but User:Sainsf has recently been successful in taking several other cloven-hoofed ruminant mammals to FA, so would perhaps be the ideal person to help improve the Cow article if they have time and inclination. MPS1992 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words MPS1992. I am sorry, I will be very busy for the next few months and will not be able to work on articles here, let alone an article as tough as Cow. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Good to see some of us still have their sense of humor here at AN/I. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually one more thing "A "wikiproject says an article is not within its scope then its not within its scope" is classic WP:OWN" would actually be classic WP:DISOWN <- not really a policy. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC)MarnetteD you do not appear to know what Ownership is. When you own an article you are attempting to control editing access to it. When a wikiproject decides what articles are within (or excluded) from its scope, it is deciding what is relevant to the wikiproject. It is *not* declaring that it and it only can edit that article (if 'within scope'). If a wikiproject decides an article is outside its scope, then it is explicitly not 'owning' it as it is excluding it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So SmokeyJoe get to decide what all those WikiProject decide is relevant? It's not like these notices were added there before and we're edit warring about them. No one from the actual project (unless you believe that SmokeyJoe can speak on behalf of these eleven projects) has removed the pages. Wouldn't a better response be to keep it there for now and wait and see that an actual project has objected to the draft outline? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• <facepalm > --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I know perfectly well what WP:OWN is. BTW you still have not provided any links to policies or guidelines that state that an editor "must" be a member of a project to add its banner to a talk page. MarnetteD|Talk 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

For one – this seems to be clearly allowed, as below. For two – I'm unclear on what administrative action is requested – or required here. As Iridescent points out below – the place to discuss this is is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. SQL^{Query me!} 17:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What our policy actually says

Given the number of people in this discussion who seem to be making up policies on the fly, it's perhaps worth pointing out what Wikipedia's policy on the matter actually is.

Many editors place banners on behalf of WikiProjects in which they are not participants. This practice is normally welcomed by WikiProjects as it brings to their attention new and interesting articles.

Please be judicious in making such placements by minimizing the number of outside banners that you place on an article and by carefully reviewing the scope of the project. Information about the project's scope is often available on the WikiProject's main page, and sometimes also on documentation associated with the template. If you are uncertain that the placement will be welcomed, then leave a note on the project's talk page instead of placing the banner yourself.

If you place a banner for a WikiProject in which you do not participate, and one of its regular participants removes it, do not re-add the banner. A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article, per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people.

Technically this is "just a guideline", but it's been in place and unchallenged since 2008. If you want it changed to "only project members can add project tags"—which would be a fairly major cultural change, given that WikiProject tags are generally so uncontroversial they're bulk-added by bot—an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council is the way to go. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As noted, is SmokeyJoe a "regular participant" in these eleven projects? If so, then fine, untag them all. It seems mighty strange that none of the projects related to the actual Ancient history article should be involved in a proposed Outline of Ancient history page. I suspect if it's in mainspace, SmokeyJoe would not be edit warring to remove all those projects from it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Let's summarize this issue.

1. There's a number of old draft outlines found within Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts.
2. I was moving those pages to draftspace, leaving a redirect to that project and tagging the Outlines with the relevant projects for that topic.
3. @SmokeyJoe: expressed voracious opposition to this so I stopped and listed the remainder at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history for discussion. The opposition seems to largely be that the project should still own these drafts as opposed to draftspace.
4. Like with Draft:Outline of London, I have been adding the relevant projects and informing the projects of proposed outlines.
5. It's pretty straightforward. For Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of ancient history, I went to Talk:Ancient history, and added those same projects plus the Outlines one.
6. This was reverted with the edit summary "those wikiprojects are not interested in this pages. are you intentionally making mischief?" This is not being done by members of a project but by one user who has determine that only members of the Outlines project should be working on Outlines.
7. I have no idea how we are supposed to determine that these project aren't interested in these pages if we don't tag the projects with the pages and keep them hidden away in a subpage of the Outlines project. Nevertheless, I have never seen a dispute that requires edit warring to remove projects from a page under the guise that the other editor knows that those projects are not interested in said draft.
8. I have done the same move request with the Swami Vivekananda project which seems dead and with the Dacia project.
9. I've been doing these for months. I created and built up Category:Draft-Class EastEnders articles, a project where I've had zero involvement, and in response, people noticed the duplication, coordinated and merged drafts and then moved them together to mainspace.

If these moves are opposed (and they seem to be), fine, keep these pages hidden away in the various projects and I'll probably just take them as old stale drafts to MFD. I'm trying to get more eyes on them in case someone else is interested but if people think the projects should own drafts on their own. If that's offensive, so be it, please explain why. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I intend to continue adding project banners on articles I create or improve, whether or not I am "affiliated" with those projects. While I understand the complaint, I think it is the most nonsensical one I have seen in over 10 years on the project. --John (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

If you tagged an article with X project, then someone removes it because you're "not affiliated with it", you'll be re-adding the tag back if another editor gets it up to a Featured Article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EllenCT continues to disrupt Economic stagnation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

EllenCT is once again performing disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. She is POV pushing by trying to insert something marginally related into a prominent position following the lede. All of this has been discussed on Talk Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular theory position in article Talk:Economic stagnation#Secular stagnation term used for recent economy "non neutrality" tag and Talk:Economic stagnation#Internationally. EllenCT never gained a consensus for her edits. She has a history of misrepresenting facts and arguing relentlessly on Talk and administrators noticeboards. She was reported here recently for edits to this article. She has a long history as a problem editor: [[128]].Phmoreno (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno is unwilling to discuss his specific objections on the article talk page, was unable to support his complaints here recently at [129] and [130], and has proven time and again that he is unwilling or unable to support his accusations with specific diffs, reliable sources, and cogent prose. I deny the allegations and repeat my request that WP:BOOMERANG again[131] be applied to restrict Phmoreno from editing on the topic of economics for at least six months and until he can agree to follow the reliable source criteria on WP:PSTS. EllenCT (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not believe this BS from her. This has been discussed extensively on talk and on this notice board. She makes misleading claims about sources and post marginally relevant information pushing her income inequality POV. She is unable to formulate a logical and truthful argument to justify her edits. This whole discussion took place here a couple of weeks ago but she waited until the discussion was archived. [[132]] She is the one who needs to be permanently banned from economics topics for her misrepresenting sources and POV pushing or she'll just be on this notice board again in a few weeks.Phmoreno (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is VictorD7's comment from EllnCT's above diff:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior.

I am in total agreement with VictorD7. applying the Pareto principle: 80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the editors, but this is an understatement. I waste more time with EllenCT's disruptive and untruthful edits than problems with all other editors combined.Phmoreno (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Phmoreno says that EllenCT "has a long history as a problem editor" and gives a link (here) to a previous ANI report ... which was also started by him, and which ended up with a general agreement that he and VictorD7 were at least equally, if not more, problematic editors. Any admin reading this probably needs to look at this exchange between VictorD7 and Phmoreno in which the latter states " I will do whatever I need to to get rid of her distorted edits even if I cannot have her blocked". Looks like he's trying again, doesn't it? Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)OK, I'm more convinced now. Laura Jamieson (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't be duped. You need to focus on EllenCT's actions in the diffs. She has gotten a lot more aggressive in misrepresenting sources and POV pushing, as can bee seen in the talk pages. Most of EllenCT's edits are pure distortions and cannot be justified.Phmoreno (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Question: About economics I know from nothing. However, when I Google "Ludwig von Mises" and "economic stagnation" I get multiple hits, the first of them from the Von Mises Institute, which seems to have a lot to say on the subject. Does this mean that the article "Economic stagnation" should be considered to be under the Austrian economics/Ludwig von Mises Institute discretionary sanctions, and, if so, should not all the participants be notified of such? If it is under that DS regime, perhaps that might calm down what appears to be continuing problems there, specifically between EllenCt and Phmoreno? BMK (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not know if Economic stagnation has any content directly related to Austrian economics/Ludwig von Mises Institute but that is not the issue here. The issue is that EllenCT refuses refuses to play by Wikipedia rules and aggressively pushes her POV and makes false claims about sources to do so. The talk pages of Talk: Economic stagnation and Talk: Economic growth are filled with problems she's caused and her misrepresentations. Anyone who gets drawn into her argument without reading the background information is making a big mistake.Phmoreno (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

My point is that if economic stagnation does fall within the penumbra of the von Mises/Austrian economics discretionary sanction, it gives admins much more leeway to regulate disruptive behavior, whomever is responsible for it. BMK (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd generally say no. Basically *anything* to do with economics *can* have something to do with Austrian economics. But unless the user in question is actively engaged in either promoting or demoting Austrian economics in particular - which isn't the case here - I don't think the vM/AE discretionary sanctions apply. But EllenCT's behavior is disruptive regardless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that, VM. BMK (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I've been active on the articles Economic growth and Economic stagnation for a long time. And yes, Phmoreno is basically correct. EllenCT is engaged in classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. She has some... peculiar, ideas about what constitutes a secondary source (ok, not that peculiar, to her "if it agrees with my POV, it's a reliable secondary source, if it doesn't, it's not", the justifications and logic pretzels for this stance she provides are peculiar). Her views on the subject are at odds with the mainstream academic scholarly literature on the subject (the tl;dr version is that EllenCT thinks one factor, economic inequality, is central to the subject matter, the literature says that at best it's one of many diverse factors whose actual effects are difficult to estimate). She derails any discussion of sources with irrelevancies or incomprehensible demands. She either lacks the WP:COMPETENCE to understand the literature on the subject or pretends to misunderstand it in a way which supports her POV. And she continually tries to edit war to get her way. It's not a break-3RR kind of edit warring, rather it's the long-drawn-out-edit-war spanning months, even years kind of edit warring. Where every few weeks she'll come back to the article(s) and try to change them back to her preferred versions. I think a topic ban from Economic growth, Economic stagnation and probably Economic inequality (that last one is a bit borderline because in that article, her idiosyncratic fixations are actually relevant to some extent) is in order.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: which specific sources are you referring to when you accuse me of, "if it agrees with my POV, it's a reliable secondary source, if it doesn't, it's not"? Our primary disagreement has been whether the literature survey sections of your favored primary research sources qualify as secondary when they disagree with bona fide WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature reviews published in reputable academic journals. You have on multiple occasions at Talk:Economic growth tried to pretend that a near-unanimity in the bona fide WP:SECONDARY sources are less reliable than literature review sections in primary sources. EllenCT (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Problems involving EllenCT and economics articles have been going on for, literally, as long as I have been actively editing Wikipedia. When this was discussed at AE [133] the general consensus seemed to be the situation was intractable. Possibly it is time for ArbCom although, as I noted in the linked AE request, I believe her long term disruption is ripe for a topic ban from economics, tax policy, wealth inequality etc. Jbh^Talk 19:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I would also propose a ban United States for EllenCT for POV pushing there.Phmoreno (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why not a more specific ban on "economics", broadly construed? Why "United States"? (Sorry, but unlike some other editors, I think the use of "broadly construed" is a good thing.) BMK (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about EllenCT's other editing, just that a topic ban from anything to do with economic growth or economic inequality is well deserved. So yeah, I don't see a need to make it "United States". "Economics" would probably be sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless Volunteer Marek is able to substantiate his accusations as I have requested above, I ask that the sanctions he requests be applied to himself. He is an experienced editor who knows better than to try to misrepresent the reliable source criteria as he has done here. Please see this Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion and Marek's refusal to answer questions at several places on Talk:Economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellen. You claim that I "refused" to "answer questions". This is completely and total falsehood. You. Are. Lying. The RSN discussion I wasn't even aware of, as can be easily verified. It's just another of one of your instances of WP:FORUMSHOPPING where you repeat the same stuff over again, where you misrepresent and fail to understand sources again etc. etc. And you didn't even BOTHER to notify me of that discussion despite the fact the issue involved me. Like I said, classic FORUMSHOPPING where you don't even notify concerned parties. Also, a quick glance at the talk page makes it painfully obvious that I have more than humored your persistent demands for discussion EVEN THOUGH you have failed to engage in these discussions in good faith yourself. This is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a tee. You need to disengage from these articles. Seriously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: why did you remove the dispute tag at [134]? Why did you revert without answering the questions at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality? You also refused to answer questions at Talk:Economic growth#Section break, Talk:Economic growth#Contemporary empirical econometric measurements, Talk:Economic growth#Long term growth versus short term growth, and Talk:Economic growth#To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth? before reverting. Why? Why did you remove the dispute tag at [135]? EllenCT (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you would have received a response if you had followed the basic formatting criteria for that noticeboard. I wouldn't really call it a discussion either since it started nowhere and finished about halfway through basic formatting (also known as nowhere). Mr rnddude (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that I followed the instructions from the RSN discussion by My very best wishes at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality where Marek currently has at least four questions about the reliability of sources awaiting his answers. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No Ellen, you did NOT "follow the instructions from RSN by My very best wishes". My very best wishes suggested that you 1) decide what the actual issue is and 2) file an RfC. You did NOT define the issue. You did NOT file an RfC. All you did was post a whole bunch of leading questions, then quickly ran over here and claimed that "Marek currently has at least four questions...awaiting his answers". Well, no kidding, since you posted those questions only an hour before posting your comment above. So please stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is continuing to edit war on Economic stagnation and Economic growth with the usual false claims, misrepresentation of sources and making false accusations against Volunteer Marek with her usual lies about lack of secondary peer reviewed literature, which has all been covered on the Talk page. EllenCT is clearly in the wrong as there are numerous reliable secondary sources. I would like to post some important content supported by journal articles but am unable to do so because of the edit war.Phmoreno (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the article on Economic growth has been lucky enough to receive attention and comments from several high profile experts in the field, such as Lant Pritchett [136] (my understanding is that this is part of some effort [137] designed to get experts in particular fields to comment on (not edit) topics they do research on - which I think is a worthwhile endeavor). These researchers have made several constructive suggestions on the talk page about how the article can be improved. Unfortunately, this whole thing with EllenCT completely derails any efforts to actually implement these suggestions because it is such a time sink. In that sense EllenCT's obstructionist and obsessive behavior is quite disruptive. In fact, it's a dictionary definition of "disruptive" - her actions on that article have "disrupted" meaningful work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I would urge anyone who feels that Phmoreno or Marek's accusations may have merit please read User:Wnt's comments at Talk:Economic growth, where he correctly points out that their deletions amount to POV-pushing. EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It may be some time until I can dig into this article, which I haven't been watching. I just finished writing up a paragraph that I shall not post because I noticed it was a near exact duplicate of User:LauraJamieson's comment above: complaining about someone to ANI and being dismissed does not give them a 'problematic history'. And while I don't doubt User:Phmoreno's promise that there will be a thread about her back on ANI in a few weeks, I don't think that makes her the problem editor. But the extra aspersions he's casting now like "gotten a lot more aggressive in misrepresenting sources and POV pushing" demand some serious evidence or a serious retraction. Which is it? Wnt (talk) 13:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

My guess is the immediate issue involves some repeated removals by Volunteer Marek (3) and Phmoreno (1) [138][139][140][141]. The section at issue is:

Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world. While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink.

So it may help to take a look at this specifically, since both sides have committed to it... OK, on the first point, I think User:EllenCT has some explaining to do. Her general point that people in this income bracket have lost would seem to be backed up by the graph on Page 13 (page 15 of the pdf). However, I don't see any particular emphasis on developed countries in this report - indeed, it doesn't use the word "developed", and AFAICT it only references World War II in terms of a hypothetical calculation that inequality would remain constant then decrease which they say is wrong. I don't see evidence of outright misrepresentation, but this is much too much processing of the data to do when you're in a contentious area like this. I would rather steal the data from that graph and make a free image to illustrate the article. NOTE, however, that I cannot generally do that if someone comes along and deletes the source entirely, instead of altering the specific text referring to it! (to be continued) Wnt (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On the second point, I think that the second half of the sentence refers to this quote:

"Notarangelo (1999) shows that this model can be viewed as a special case of the pure-labor model analyzed in Pasinetti (1993). The modifications amount to the introduction of explicit functions for sectoral demand with differing income and price elasticities. Given a constant output ratio of the two sectors, the transition to the stagnant service sector is associated with a transition period in which the aggregate growth rate of productivity is larger than the aggregate growth rate of consumption, leading to increasing unemployment."

But again, I think this is too much handling of the data. Sectoral demand, aggregate growth rate of consumption, I'm sure all these terms have very specific meaning to economists, but for me, I can't actually equate it directly with aggregate demand, so EllenCT probably should avoid doing so and stick closer to the source phrasing. I don't think it's misrepresenting what is said, but ... I've repeatedly said I think of Wikipedia as a project where we pick oranges and put them in a truck. These are ripe oranges, not apples, but they're getting bruised. But again, deleting the source is not the answer! Wnt (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, this isn't the venue to discuss content. That'd be the article talk page, where it has in fact been discussed [142] [143]. The tl;dr version is that the text EllenCT is trying to insert is not actually supported by the sources, it's off topic, and EllenCT either doesn't understand what the sources (particularly the second one) are about or is pretending not to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

(in particular, that second sentence is pulled out of thin air, it has nothing to do with the source. She. Just. Made. It. Up. And then tacked on a irrelevant source at the end to pretend that the claim was actually sourced).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I see administrative drama on article talk pages all the time. I feel like they've pissed in our ashtrays often enough that we're entitled to toss a cigarette butt in their urinal. I edit conflicted with you above but as you see now I would certainly disagree that it was pulled "from thin air". I recognize the use for talk page discussion but frankly I just wanted to take a virgin crack at it before I looked, and when I looked, I didn't see anything as substantive as what I say above. And since if I recall correctly you actually *know* economics, unlike me, that is a significant failure on your part. Now what I want everyone on that article to do is to stop deleting sources of any kind as long as they are reliable sources, and limit the battle to just what the text derived from them is. Wnt (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wnt. I'm close to losing my patience with you (you have a way of doing that to people). If you don't understand the issue, then the intelligent thing is to stay out of it. I will "delete sources" because - and this part is not that hard to understand - the text based on them does not correspond to what the sources actually say. Yes sources must be reliable. But it must also be the case that they say the freakin' thing an editor claims they say. Again, not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood. Wnt isn't trying to say don't remove the poorly sourced or unsourced content. They're saying don't remove the reference source, use it to improve the article. However, if the source is irrelevant to the article then why exactly are we keeping it? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On consideration, it's not that easy for me to assess relevance with some of these cases - most notably, whether a source about economic growth is relevant to economic stagnation, since stagnation is a function of growth. I think that a powerful good will gesture in some of these cases would be to transfer the source to the article you think is more relevant, together with text accurately summarizing its main point. Wnt (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

This is never going to be resolved at AN/I or dispute resolution, so I suggest that one of the editors involved bring the issue to ArbCom. BMK (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and the only behavioral problems concern failure to abide by the reliable source criteria. Why would arbitration be preferable to mediation? I have requested mediation and stated that I would gladly agree to it in the past, but my opponents never agree to it, because, I suspect, they know very well that their positions won't withstand anything more than superficial scrutiny. EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Not because I'm making a judgment about who in this dispute is right and who is wrong, but because I do not see any other way of solving the problem except an ArbCom case. Without that, this issue is going to keep popping up on the noticebaords. BMK (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• I can't remember, can't we just impose a community topic-ban on EllenCT for these articles and be done with it? Or is that something that can only be done by ArbCom? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The community can certainly do that, if it wants to. My proposal comes from my observation that previous reports about this dispute have ended without any sanction being applied to any editors. My feeling is that no AN/I discussion is going to end up in a sanction, but if someone wishes to suggest a counter-proposal to sanction EllenCT, they can certainly do that. However, my observation is that the more the proposals proliferate, the less it's likely that any one of them will receive enough support to be put into effect. That's why I believe ArbCom. a more neutral venue, is more likely to come to an viable conclusion. BMK (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support per my diff of AE discussion above. Although I would support a broadly construed topic ban from economics for EllenCT should someone put together the evidence and propose one. An ArbCom case on this would be a nightmare and EllenCT has, from my observations, been the central actor in economics drama over time although a rotation of others have been nearly as bad but that could very well be a reaction to EllenCT's behavior... or not. Jbh^Talk 12:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What is your opinion of Laura Jamieson's assessment above? EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

My opinion is that irrespective of other editors I have witnessed you carry on what I can only describe as a bludgeoning crusade on those economic topics near and dear to you. I have, over that time, come to the conclusion that you provide way more heat than light to any economic topic or discussion I have seen you participate in - including using UT:Jimbo as a soapbox.

I have commented on other editor's behavior in relation to you/their conflicts with you and recommended a time out for them as well. You can see the conversation I had with VictorD7 at User talk:Jbhunley#Curious. I do not have a dog in this fight. I am simply basing my recommendations on the long term behavior I have seen and while I have seen others behaving badly it always seems to be in relation to you and you seem to always be engaged in IDHT, bludgeoning and general battleground behavior. I can go dig up diffs as examples but I am trying to simply explain why I have the opinion I do not build a case against you. Jbh^Talk 13:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make personal attacks like saying you have witnessed a "bludgeoning crusade" then I would ask that you do provide diffs of such behavior or strike your accusations, please. EllenCT (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done [144]. Jbh^Talk 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per BMK. This may be the only way to settle this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should demand that Phmoreno put up or shut up on his accusations right here, right now, and go through them, and see if they have merit. If they have merit, ANI can act directly, and if they don't, ANI can act directly. This is very clearly a partisan issue and what we actually need are more people genuinely interested in economics at a technical rather than a political level to go in and do some neutral editing. I mistrust getting into the habit of kicking every major decision about political POV to ArbCom, because it puts too much pressure on the political parties to take them over. Wnt (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Phmoreno HAS "put up" and he has done this "right here, right now", as well as previously. He has provided evidence. You just didn't bother to read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Both sides have put up lots of 'evidence' but nobody has the time to sort through it and develop a complete picture (it ends up quite distorted). It's easy to take the evidence and spin it however way you want. So while I find myself agreeing with the above, I also see the problems with it as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - This discussion has been held on AN/I more than once and hasn't managed to improve the situation at all, if anything it devolves into a massive arguments thread that just goes in circles with 5 different proposals of which none pass. Perhaps taking this to ArbCom will improve things. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Arbcom is last resort not first. A topic ban as per below should suffice. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Well, numerous AN/I threads haven't lead to any solutions - they generally just peter out into nothing, so going to ArbCom in that situation is hardly a "first resort." The problem with going to ArbCom is that someone has to prepare and file a request against somebody, and neither side appears to be willing to do that. The "sanction EllenCT" side appears to believe that their proposal below will be accepted by an admin, but it doesn't look to me that it has the volume of support that admins generally look for before imposing a serious sanction such as banning someone from their primary subject area. Could be I'm wrong, it's been known to happen, but that's how I see it. EllenCT, on the other hand, seems to be relying on a "if I keep pelting my opponents with questions, maybe they'll go away" strategy, so much so that I am tempted myself to support the topic ban request simply based on her behavior in this discussion, which is a kind of passive-aggresive battleground behavior. BMK (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just took another look at the support/opposes for the topic ban proposal, and I'm no longer confident in the statement I made above, so I'm striking it out. BMK (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is very strong consensus for topic ban right now. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus exists in this thread for a topic ban, which would be a more "economical" solution. Begoon ^talk 13:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for EllenCT

Rather than immediately running to ArbCom and throwing this to them, I think a simpler solution is simply to impose a topic ban for EllenCT on the subject of "Economics, broadly construed". Personally I would be fine with a narrower ban on just "economic growth" and "economic stagnation", and even just those articles in particular, but comments above from other users indicate that they've had problems with the user in a broader area.

• Support as proposer.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above. Based on long term observation of EllenCT's behavior here, at AE (linked above) and her multiple JimboTalk threads on 'trickle down' etc. (I know we do not ban people for expressing views on JT. The threads just support a pattern of "crusading" behavior) I feel she contributes way more heat than light to the economics areas she participates in. She seems completely unable to separate her views from her editing or accept other editors may have a valid POV. Jbh^Talk 14:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC) 14:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you see that User:Volunteer Marek has for years openly admitted using literature review sections of WP:PRIMARY research papers to support his personal POV because the actual comprehensive literature review articles disagree with his opinion, at Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources? That is directly contravening the WP:PSTS criteria, and it has literally been going on for years. Marek openly admits doing this. I ask that the sanction he requests be applied to himself. EllenCT (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have admitted no such thing. Please stop making stuff up. THIS RIGHT HERE is exactly the problem with your approach to editinG. THIS RIGHT HERE is why it's impossible to have a constructive conversation with you about anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can read the talk page section and see for themselves, especially your behavior after the section break when you refuse to engage further after being called on your violation of the reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have briefly read through some of your sourcing complaints and once even considered addressing one but I found that I disagree with your interpretations and assignment of weight. Whether that has changed in the last year and a half is not something which I have any desire to engage with you here. The behavior I have witnessed over time indicates to me any discussion with you which did not strictly agree with you would be fruitless. Jbh^Talk 15:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Some examples of EllenCT's total inability to let things go:

Train wreck AE thread on taxation,Is supply side trickle down any more reputable than homeopathy, Seriously renouncing Ayn_Rands misogyny and trickle down, Okun and Rand: error dispassionate and impassioned, Even in a freaking Kitten for you thread

There are more but the JT threads show a for want of a better word, obsessive, engagement with her particular economic views. The AE thread contains, in my mind, more than sufficient evidence to show this attitude extends into encyclopedia disruption as opposed to simple pontification. Jbh^Talk 15:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that in the last link, Jimbo goes from saying he doesn't want to talk about the issue to saying he does't mind my continuing to raise it. The WP:SYSTEMICBIAS issues are explained well in all those links. EllenCT (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Struck the last diff. The others are still more than sufficient to illustrate the point. Jbh^Talk 16:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is not well evidenced. Linking to a couple of talk page threads doesn't cut it. Please provide diffs with an explanation of what you think is wrong with those diffs. I've spent about an hour trying to get my head around this dispute and have got basically nowhere because it inevitably ends with me trying to digest longish articles that are well outside my area of expertise to try to understand whether sources actually make the claims editors are attributing to them. Usually the answer is, "maybe," which hasn't got me far. Without this type of evidence, it's unlikely anyone here is going to take the time to understand the complaint or do anything about it. My hour reading hasn't really given me a view on the rights and wrongs of this. It's entirely possible that a well-presented complaint would demonstrate the need for action, and, as far as I can tell, equally possible that EllenCT has a point. The fairly dreadful state of the Economic stagnation article itself doesn't help as it provides a newcomer to the subject very little in the way of an overview of the subject.

If those bringing this complaint don't evidence it better then one of two things will happen: Either nothing, or it will end up at arbcom, where they will certainly demand detailed evidence. Might as well give it here. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. If you give me a little bit of time I can provide numerous diffs illustrating EllenCT engaging in a long-drawn out edit war to insert text into articles that is not actually supported by the sources (i.e. misrepresenting sources) and another long-drawn out edit war to force through her "preferred" version over talk page consensus. The third issue is her completely inability to engage people constructively on talk but for that you really do just have to read the talk pages. I'd like to note that long time ago, I actually *defended* EllenCT when she was up for sanctions because I thought she was a well intentioned user (she probably is) and that she'd get better with time. The opposite has happened and now I got regrets about standing up for her once.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that'll be best. At the moment we're !voting on proposals without any very clear idea of what the basis for them is. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok here's one, very quickly, just cuz I got to go to actual work. I'll be adding more over time:

Here EllenCT adds the sentence "When income equality rises, gross domestic product grows" and cites it to this source. The text is simply not supported by the source. The source itself is about the impact of income inequality on health, not GDP growth. Second, the source doesn't even say that. EllenCT just made it up and then added the source to pretend that the claim is well sourced. This is actually a typical edit of hers and it illustrates exactly what the problem is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"when inequality was rising, economic growth was related to only a modest improvement in health, whereas during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product," page 324 319 (PDF page 4.)EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to see the problems here, and how annoyingly time-consuming they could be. @EllenCT: there are two problems with the sentence you quote. Firstly, it is not on page 324. In this particular case, thankfully, the PDF is searchable. I've seen a couple of other cases where you reference a PDF that is bitmap scan (ie non-searchable) to support a single sentence; this kind of imprecise or inaccurate referencing makes checking anything you say rather difficult. Secondly, it doesn't mean what you say it does. The paper is about health effects of inequality and the sentence you cite is saying that, when inequality rises, increases in GDP don't have a large positive effect on health but when inequality falls, increases in GDP have a large positive effect on health. This is clear if you follow through to the paper referenced by Pickett and Wilkinson, Biggs et al (2013). To quote from their abstract: "during times of decreasing or constant poverty and inequality, there was a very strong relationship between increasing GDP and higher life expectancy and lower TB and infant mortality rates." Neither paper makes any point about the relationship between inequality and rates of GDP growth. I'm still not sure whether this misunderstanding is deliberate or not, but can certainly see how it would be frustrating. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Full text of Biggs et al 2013 is here BTW. GoldenRing (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is deliberate or not, it is very very frequent. Basically most of the disputes on these articles are about stuff like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Both GoldenRing and Volunteer Marek prove here that they have not read the text at [145] which contains dozens of references to GDP. EllenCT (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I regard that as a personal attack. Please reconsider it. Of course it contains dozens of references to GDP. It refers to inequality many times too. Just because it happens to contain those two words doesn't mean that it comes to the conclusion that you say it does. So let's restate it: Pickett & Wilkinson, in the paper you cited, argued that there is a substantial relationship between income inequality, life expectancy, infant mortality and tuberculosis mortality rates; they also reported that when inequality was rising, economic growth was related to only a modest improvement in health, whereas during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product. That says exactly zero about the relationship between inequality and growth; it is only concerned with their combined effect on health. Regarding your query about the remaining ten papers used to establish the point, "Other studies have shown an association between income inequality and health across states/regions within nations," is it my job to go fishing through sources to establish your point, when the one you've cited is about something completely different? No, no it isn't. But what the hell, I've got a build running and if I didn't do it I'd only go and practice the piano or something else that would actually improve my life. To answer your question: funnily enough, no, none of them are about the relationship between inequality and GDP, they're all about the relationship between inequality and health. Here they are:

• De Maio et al 2012 - Extending the income inequality hypothesis: Ecological results from the 2005 and 2009 Argentine National Risk Factor Surveys - main conclusion: Our cross-sectional results indicate a significant relationship between inequality (Gini) and poor health
• Daly et al 2001 - Income inequality and homicide rates in Canada and the United States - main conclusion: we find that the positive relationship between the Gini and the homicide rate is undiminished - although they also note that their data shows that inequality leads to increased mean income (ie per capita GDP) - have you read it? — GoldenRing — continues after insertion below

I would point out that mean income is skewed by outliers at the top, and so is not used for population statistics distributed with top-heavy outliers when the median is available. EllenCT (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rasella et al 2013 - Impact of income inequality on life expectancy in a highly unequal developing country: the case of Brazil - main conclusion: The Gini index, as the other measure of income inequality, was negatively associated with life expectancy
• Subramanian et al 2003 - Income inequality and health: multilevel analysis of Chilean communities - main conclusion: a significant gradient was observed between income and poor self rated health
• Pei & Rodriguez 2006 - Provincial income inequality and self-reported health status in China during 1991–7 - main conclusion: The results show that there is an increased risk of about 10–15% on average for fair or poor health for people living in provinces with greater income inequalities compared with provinces with modest income inequalities.
• Larrea & Kawachi 2005 - Does economic inequality affect child malnutrition? The case of Ecuador - main conclusion: economic inequality at the provincial scale had a statistically significant deleterious effect on stunting
• Rajan et al 2013 - Is wealthier always healthier in poor countries? The health implications of income, inequality, poverty, and literacy in India - main conclusion: Our analysis suggests that wealthier is indeed healthier in India – but only to the extent that high average incomes reflect low poverty and high literacy. Furthermore, inequality has a strong effect on self-reported health.
• De Vogli et al 2005 - Has the relation between income inequality and life expectancy disappeared? Evidence from Italy and top industrialised countries - main conclusion: income inequality had an independent and more powerful effect on life expectancy at birth than did per capita income and educational attainment
• Kondo et al 2008 - Do social comparisons explain the association between income inequality and health?: Relative deprivation and perceived health among male and female Japanese individuals - main conclusion: relative income deprivation is associated with poor self-rated health independently of absolute income
• Walberg et al 1998 - Economic change, crime, and mortality crisis in Russia: regional analysis - main conclusion: The decline in life expectancy in Russia in the 1990s cannot be attributed simply to impoverishment. Instead, the impact of social and economic transition, exacerbated by a lack of social cohesion, seems to have played a major part. The evidence that alcohol is an important proximate cause of premature death in Russia is strengthened.

Funnily enough, all of the papers advanced to support a point made about health effects of inequality and GDP are papers about health effects of inequality and GDP. Can I have an hour of my life back now, please? GoldenRing (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: why do you think that they are about inequality and GDP is funny, whether they are about health or not? The correlation you are looking for in Biggs et al (2013) is given on Table 2, page 269, but you might find Table 4 at the bottom of page 270 even more pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned previously, go to the RfC or even to your own talk pages for content discussion. I'll summarize just very quickly, nope the correlation does not exist on either of the two tables you mentioned. If you wish to discuss why, I can leave a message on your talk page or you can leave one on mine, either way is fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: the correlation between GDP and income inequality is plainly given as -0.19, significant at p<0.01. I have every right to defend myself against false accusations of misrepresenting sources here. The factors required for causal relationship analysis are in Table 4. EllenCT (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT:So in other words, not significant... because -0.19 is less than 0.01. As a serious question, what precisely does that mean? the correlation what does it mean? Also you agreed not to continue content discussion on this page, to quote you "this is not what AN/I is for". Direct comments on content on my talk page, if you want to discuss them. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the usual measure of statistical significance is p<0.05, and p<0.01 is more significant, not less. I appreciate the offer to communicate with you directly, but feel it might be more appropriate to thoroughly defend myself against false accusations, so I will point out that we have articles on statistical correlation and p-value measures of statistical significance. Further content discussion should take place on the growth RFC. EllenCT (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Page 319 (PDF page 4, sorry.) Do the remaining 10 sources cited in the literature review later in the same paragraph support the same statement? EllenCT (talk)

@GoldenRing: Would you please answer the question? EllenCT (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: See my detailed answer above. No, none of the remaining ten sources support the statement that inequality reduces GDP growth. They are all about the health effects of inequality. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, all of the other ten sources agree with the MEDRS causal review. And all of the peer reviewed secondary literature which has reached a conclusion on the question has agreed since the 1990s. EllenCT (talk) 18:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I read the Pickett study and agree that EllenCT fundamentally misunderstood the point in the paper. Like GoldenRing, I did not know whether this was deliberate or not, but I am stunned after having it pointed out, that EllenCT could ask this question. Has it not sunk in that this is a paper about the relationship between income inequality and health, not a paper about the relationship between income inequality and GDP growth? I don't need to review the other ten sources cited, as they are about an association between income inequality and health. Is that not yet understood?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The Pickett and Wilkinson causal review is the most recent MEDRS-class WP:SECONDARY source in agreement with all of the peer reviewed literature reviews which reach conclusions on the relationship between inequality and growth, some of which were discussed recently at RSN. EllenCT (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This is simply not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Those who doubt it can easily click through to see for themselves. How long do you think you can hold your unsupported position? EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The title is a give-away:

Income inequality and health: A causal review

It is a study about the relationship between income inequality and health, not a study about the relationship between income inequality and growth.

If the title is too terse, the opening sentence is relevant:

There is a very large literature examining income inequality in relation to health

This isn't a minor point, it is the entire point of the article, and presumably the supporting references. The article does make a tangential comment about growth, but not the one you took away.

Either you honestly think that the article is about the relationship between inequality and growth, in which case Wp:competence is an issue, or you know better, and the problem is more serious. I don't think there is a third option.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On page 319, "during periods of decreasing inequality, there was a very strong effect of rising Gross Domestic Product," is not a tangential comment because the same paragraph of the causal review goes on to site ten additional references in support. The causal review agrees in that respect with all the other peer reviewed literature reviews which reach conclusions on the matter. The failed hypothesis that inequality promotes growth, which is so beloved by supply side trickle down proponents, Marek, and Pheremo, is given zero support in the causal review. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Here is another example which is exactly of the same nature. Here (and a whole bunch of other reverts) EllenCT keeps trying to add the sentence: "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world". NONE of this is actually in the source provided (this one). The source does NOT say "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally". The source does NOT say that "international differences in the rates of growth" have been "caused by income inequality". The source does NOT say that these "international differences in the rates of growth ... have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes". The sources does NOT say that this stagnation occured "in the post-World War II (period in the) developed world".

All of this is just made up. By EllenCT. And then she tucks on a citation to a source at the end to pretend that the material is well sourced. It's not. The sentence doesn't even make sense for the most part. How in the world would "international differences in rates of growth" between countries "lead to" "stagnation among the lower and middle classes" within developed countries. What's that basically claiming - again, completely NOT based on the source - is that because Fiji had different growth than Germany, the incomes of the middle class in the United States stagnated! It's just nonsense. Falsely-cited nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The statistics in the source, "Global income inequality in numbers: In history and now." Global policy 4(2):198-208, most certainly do support the included statement, as does this graph the author drew to support his popular treatment, which was also included in the source reference which Marek and Pheremo have continually reverted. The graph more clearly supports the statement which measures growth from a per-capita instead of per-country perspective. EllenCT (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What "statement"? There are like five different claims in that sentence, all of them wrong, all of them NOT supported by the source. And NO! That graph DOES NOT support ANYTHING in that claim. I really don't know if you're just being very very very disingenuous or you are simply not capable of reading a graph.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: This is the same example I discussed above, and as I said there I think it's wrong to say that nothing is related. As I'm reading through the discussion I think the problem with EllenCT's edits that have come up is that she's starting with a statement that she knows to be true - and I know I've seen some of these statements in news reports and the like - and then she's going out and trying to find "high quality sources" to back it up. Unfortunately at times she is just settling on what she can find, even if it is not enough. I would bet this is a pathological effect of the griefing people have been giving each other over sources to these articles in the past - excluding even high quality sources over imagined flaws. True, she joined in that as much as anyone, but I feel that the toxic climate extends well beyond her. Wnt (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: if you think the references or text can improved, do you think improving them or accusing others of creating a toxic climate because they were sub-optimal is superior editing behavior?

You literally just attacked the only person who has taken your side in the debates. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: I don't feel attacked here; this is thought provoking, actually. She correctly points out that I was using a somewhat asymmetric standard about these things. If an editor provides a good source and badly summarizes it, another editor should summarize it more accurately; but if the editor provides a correct text but badly sources it, that too is fixable. But both, obviously, are trouble in proportion to how bad the fit really is. Where it gets asymmetrical is I feel like it's easier to take a source and see what it says than to take a statement and find a source for it, which is why it bothers me more to see a good reliable source taken out than to see an unsupported statement taken out. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see her as being worse than people on the other side of the issue, and probably better. Everyone is at fault for failing to better consider and discuss the specific issues, but most at fault are the people who just hit the Revert button, sources and all, rather than looking either to extract fair value from them for the article at hand or at least to transfer them and their content to some more relevant article. Wnt (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT is not a"well intentioned" user. She' only editing to push her POV which is to highlight income inequality. Most of her edits are misrepresentations of the sources with cherry picked sentences she uses to justify them. Although some of her sources are good, when they do not support the text and are subsequently deleted, the references make no sense as stand alones. To make the references useful someone would have to read the source and write something constructive. That is not the job of the person doing the clean up, but should have been done by EllenCT in the first place. "Everyone is at fault for failing to better consider and discuss the specific issues.." Plainly false. Try having an intelligent discussion with EllenCT. If you carefully read what she says on Talk you will see that she hardly ever makes a truthful, factual, well thought out and intelligent statement related to the subject she is discussing. She turns the discussion around by calling for "peer reviewed secondary sources" for the other person's argument to deflect attention away from her not being able to support her claims.Phmoreno (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyone caring to review my edit history can see that the of the thousands of sources I have added to hundreds of articles over the years, only a dozen or so have been controversial but the same topics affected by WP:SYSTEMICBIAS continue to cause complaints here at ANI from editors such as Phmoreno who are unable to find support for their positions in the secondary literature, so they are upset that when I add them. I note that nobody has provided an example of sources being misrepresented. Note that Marek is reduced to arguing with all caps and strings of single words punctuated by periods. EllenCT (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, because you are incapable of listening - WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And I have no idea what "systemicbias" has to do with any of this, that's a new one, it's basically you being just desperate to provide some excuse, no matter how flimsy, for your disruptive behavior and the fact that you regularly misrepresent sources in your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks aren't a cogent argument, but by all means, please continue to show everyone the actual extent of your reasoning. EllenCT (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

These are not "personal attacks". These are criticisms of your editing behavior. Which is very deserving of criticism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Writing this kind of generalization without citing a set of diffs (and about more than one thing) is just trouble. Frankly, I'm just not going to believe you. Because I think on average, most of the policy accusations people make on Wikipedia are bull, and I don't feel like you're the rare exception to the rule. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Diffs have been provided. You can believe whatever you wish.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Arbcom This, like the other threads will not go anywhere because the principal disputants are simply overpowering the thread. Structured evidence is needed. Jbh^Talk 16:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Strike. Should have done so days ago to avoid confusion, since we started to get solid discussion and consensus forming. Jbh^Talk 12:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm surprised this has not happened already. My experience with EllenCT has been similar to those described by Phmoreno. I've been on Wikipedia for 11 years and she's the only editor that I actively avoid because she's so difficult and frustrating to work with. Soapboxing on income inequality, misrepresenting what is supported by sources, dishonesty, OR, battleground, IDHT, etc. A lot more would get done by just working with Wnt, Lawrencekhoo, et al. Morphh ^(talk) 18:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Morphh: A lot more won't get done working with me, because I basically only looked in one time after there was a ruckus on Jimbo's page, and then maybe once or twice more in response to having my name called. Generally, the best person for writing an article is the person who does it. Generalists like me can talk about something now and then but we're not going to get the job done. I don't see enough wrong here to justify a ban, especially considering that the result of such a ban is likely going to facilitate bias by editors on the other side who haven't been called out as vigorously. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been thinking of another editor. Bias is not the issue - we all have bias and I can work with bias. Running people in circles, misrepresenting sources, tendentious editing, soapboxing - that's different. Don't oppose simply to provide editors with differing viewpoints a wall upon which to bash their head. Morphh ^(talk) 22:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Since specific examples help, I recalled a very detailed paragraph Morphh wrote after EllenCT dragged him and me in a dispute that we had nothing to do relating to Austrian Economics. To avoid cluttering this page, see Morphh's comments here with ample diffs.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - been there with EllenCT on more than one occasion. Here's a choice sample: [146] Mattnad (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It does look like she did some synth there, but bear in mind that the point is pretty obvious. College education does correlate with a much higher salary, hence much higher taxes. And the sources shed light on that point. Ideally we should have a source make that statement, or barring that, lay out the argument step by step in a more carefully worded background section. After all, a country might tax the poor more than the rich and then raising wages would decrease revenues. But you can't seriously be arguing that overall the statement is a lie, can you? Or that her source is completely irrelevant? It's just too oversimplified. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's not use the term "lie" which was not asserted. That's beside the point, which is whether the claim was supported by the sources. And the claim was not that college education results in higher taxes, the statement removed was Government investment in college tuition subsidies usually pay for themselves many times over in additional tax revenue. That's a strong statement, which I do not believe is true, but is not supported by any of the references I have yet examined (and I've reviewed several purportedly in support of the claim). It seems plausible that subsidies will result in increased tax revenues, but "increased" and "pay for themselves many times over" are two very different statements. I haven't yet found anything that remotely supports the claim.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, Mattnad, and Wnt: "the state receives a $4.5 net return for every dollar it invests to get students through college."[147] "the additional earnings from two or four years of college (relative to only high school) were $2.4 trillion"[148] EllenCT (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As User:Only in death suggested, this is not the place for additional content debate. Yes, I have been guilty of it, in the naive belief that a clear explanation of the problem will sink in, but enough is enough. I'll be happy to engage in the content dispute elsewhere.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick and Only in death: I don't think anything Ellen or anyone else here has been doing in terms of content debate here is inappropriate; I think it has generally been very helpful for getting to the bottom of this. You can't study waves if you don't have any water! Wnt (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: There is a point where the waves serve to disrupt the study. There's too many waves and too much data, and it's beginning to disrupt communication. Besides, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It is true that, whether I like it or not, this discussion is moving toward an end; but I don't think that fresh content arguments are worse than fresh policy arguments at this point. Wnt (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with you on this point if only there was a hint of change or at least acknowledgement of the problem. There's nothing wrong with studying the waves so long as 1. it's not the same waves and 2. the waves from earlier have been resolved in such a way that the lessons that could be taken from them have been taken from them. Arguably requirement 1. has been met but requirement 2. most definitely hasn't. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: Well, this is where you're right and where you're wrong. The Huffington Post does make that argument, but that's not what you cited. There are two ways to write Wikipedia, comparable to reverse genetics and forward genetics - we can take a source and see what we can observe from it, or take an observation and see what we can source for it. The second type is more difficult, especially if you're worried about sources being challenged, but you still have to come back with the right thing. Or, as sometimes happens with forward genetics, modify what you say you found to match what you actually did find. Wnt (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: Thank you for your observation. My point on EllenCT stands, because at the time of her disruptive activities, she did not cite the Huffinton Post article because it hadn't been written yet (we can ignore the treasury report which doesn't address the contentious item). What she doesn't acknowledge is her blatant refusal to provide a relevant source two years ago, while still persisting in editing as if she had. Her comments today are indicative of how she just doesn't get it.Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Mattnad: back then I thought the multiplier was closer to 6 (hence my use of "several" to mean 4.5) but I now agree with the Treasury figures, and the epsilon-delta observations that can be made with the data in the Treasury report. Let's move this content discussion back to where it arose. EllenCT (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Unfortunately, based on this reply by EllenCT to this comment and after looking at her other comments, I think she indeed misrepresent sources. In this example, she introduced a strong, general and questionable claim to the page that apparently was not in the source. Her response ("The statistics in the sources [that one and another one] most certainly do support the included statement" does not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you look at the graph that the author prepared for the popular treatment of his report? It's perfectly legitimate to describe international growth from the perspective of per-capita real and purchasing power adjusted incomes instead of from the perspective of different states with different levels of development. EllenCT (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the conclusion that "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world" was based on your interpretation of this graph? And things like that led to protracted disputes and discussions on various talk pages and noticeboards? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes; do you believe the graph or data in the report does not support that statement? EllenCT (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not mind when people interpret simple graphs and summarize their own understanding of sourced content. However, if you make general conclusions that are not in the sources [149] based on your own interpretation of graphs and other primary sources, this qualify as WP:OR. If it leads to prolonged disputes and disruption, this may be a reason for the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It does not support the statement.

The statement talks about generally increasing growth rates. The graph is about relative income growth by income cohort, and says nothing about whether the rates are increasing, decreasing or flat. The statement implies globalization is a driver, while the graph says nothing of the kind. The statement is about post-World War II, and the graph starts in 1988, not the usual starting point for a claim about Post-WWII. The statement implies income inequality causes differences in the rate of growth and the graph does nothing of that sort. If you take out the phrases that are not supported by the graph, I believe you are left with an observation that some income cohorts in the developed world have stagnated incomes. An interesting observation, to be sure, but not close to the contested statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You are claiming that an aggregate change in income per person (y-axis) across individuals organized by wealth percentile instead of countries, is not proportional to the rate of growth as experienced by the people whose income has changed or remained stagnant, as the case may be? How can income per person have increased without growing? It is common practice for economists and economics commentary to measure per-capita growth in terms of change in income per person.[150][151][152] EllenCT (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In math terms, growth is the first derivative of income (wrt time) while increasing growth rates are a comment about the second derivative. You are conflating the first and second derivatives. That's like confusing acceleration with speed. (Many people do that, by the way.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Growth rates in the developing world have increased and for the middle class in the developed world they have decreased. That is exactly what the statistics in the cited source say. EllenCT (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we're talking about a change in growth rates or the actual growth rates (and yes, Sphilbrick is right - you appear not to understand the difference) the key thing is that there's NOTHING in either the article or the chart that says that any of this was caused by inequality. Nor is there ANYTHING in the article which says that the reason why the incomes of those at the 80th percentile of world income distribution have stagnated is because of "international differences in growth rates" (whatever the hey that is suppose to mean). And there's NOTHING in there about a "post-World War II period", it's about the 1988-2008 period (in fact, the trends highlighted in the graphic are of interest *precisely* because they are a reversal of general "post World War II" trends. You are simply wrong and you are making stuff up which is not based on the source. And persist in doing so, in a very obstinate way, even as your error is pointed out again and again by multiple editors. It's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to a Tee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Not an economics person but, the statistics if I understood them say that growth (not growth rate) in the developing world is greater than in a stagnating or poor economy. This has nothing to do with rates, you are literally conflating velocity with acceleration. The velocity is high in the developing world, there could be no acceleration or even deceleration. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Both positive acceleration and positive velocity result in relatively positive increases in displacement. The quantification in the underlying sources is described well by the graph. EllenCT (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot in good conscience !vote either for or against this proposal because the subject is not one I'm familiar with, and, frankly, I don't have the time to come up with an informed opinion by reading the volumes of material it seems would be necessary. That, I think, is probably also the case for many other editors, which is why this dispute never gets settled at AN/I, and why I think it should go to ArbCom, who earn their considerable salary by adjudicating just such disputes. Unfortunately, if one side wants a topic ban, and the other side is asking for mediation, there's no one left to request a case. Now, just as a matter of tactics, I would have thought that one side or the other would have recognized by now that they're not going to get what they want at this venue, and would therefore want to steal a march on the other side by filing a case - but apparently that's not happening, much to my surprise. BMK (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The relentless uncollegial approach is one of the things that has made me walk away from wikipedia these last 5-6 months. Creates an atmosphere that is ... difficult to endure. I find The tendency to insert an opinion into multiple marginally-related articles across the project maddening. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I note that most of the supporters here are my usual tag team who never constructively engage with me except to show up to vote against me at ANI and vote against my RFCs, but rarely answer specific questions about their particular reasons for opposition. EllenCT (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Honestly if the comment/exchange with Sphilbrick above doesnt convince you of EllenCTs ineptness in the area, nothing will. She is either unable to understand, or willfully misunderstands in order to further her own aims. Despite being repeatedly corrected by numerous people. Either way, it has gone on long enough. Arbcom is a last resort. The first resort for someone being disruptive on a topic is to stop them editing on that topic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Only in death: I don't see an exchange with Sphilbrick above. Did I miss it or did you mean to say some other editor? BMK (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Nevermind, found it, searched on the wrong string. BMK (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Innepness? Which one of us is aware that per-capita GDP is stated as real (inflation-) and purchasing power parity-adjusted income per person when making comparisons across countries? EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The exchange above in which EllenCT continues to misread a source on inequality and health after the mistake was clearly pointed out, and instead insists that her misreading was correct, makes clear that there is a competence issue here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The statement cited clearly relates inequality to "Gross Domestic Product," does it not? That the article is about inequality and health simply means that it is an MEDRS-class review, which is why I selected it. EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Have you not understood this yet? The statement you quote above is about health effects of rising GDP. A plain reading of the text clearly says so. Following the study cited for the claim clearly says so. That you claim here again that it does make this relationship is wearing good faith thin to the point of breaking. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, "We analyzed the relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing power parity, extreme poverty rates, the gini coefficient for personal income and three common measures of public health" is from the abstract at [153]. Putting obvious falsehoods in boldface without having read the underlying material forms as strong a basis as any of the support votes in this section. EllenCT (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It combines GDP and inequality to derive an influence on health. High inequality and high GDP has modest effects on health, low inequality and high GDP has high effects on health. This does not necessarily meant inequality affects GDP, only that inequality and GDP affect health. You are taking statement A and statement B to derive a statement C that is not supported by the source. That statement here is that low inequality improves GDP. There is no such relation in the abstract of the source. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the concluding sentences on page 272? "It is often said that wealth is the most powerful determinant of a society’s health, especially in resource-poor settings. Here, we find that greater wealth does not guarantee health. If policymakers wish to improve health, they should consider seeking equitable ways to achieve rises in living standards so as to address underlying challenges of poverty and inequality." [emphasis added] EllenCT (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: 1. No, of course not, I am not going through your entire source to find something like that. 2. I specifically went through the abstract as per your comment above and 3. That quote Does not say that GDP is affected by inequality. I'm sorry but you are showing an astounding level of either not getting it or not listening. For the last time, that sentence that you have quoted at me says and I paraphrase, if you want to improve health then address poverty and inequality. Where in that sentence are you reading that GDP is being affected by inequality and how are you managing to do it when GDP is not even mentioned. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The correlation is given on Table 2, page 269, but you might find Table 4 at the bottom of page 270 even more pertinent. EllenCT (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's save any further discussion of content for the RfC as that's where content disputes belong. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I came to this thread with an open mind either way and am walking away thoroughly convinced that a topic ban is entirely merited. If a topic ban is not appropriate, then an indef CIR block is. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

What does CIR mean? EllenCT (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Ellen, they are referring to this: WP:CIR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(EC)WP:CIR Competence Is Required. Sadly only an essay. The relevant parts for you would be: Factual & Bias-based. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: do you believe I am biased towards the idea that income inequality inhibits economic growth? I would admit to that in almost the same way that I am biased towards the statement that 1+1=2. Do you think my bias or that of others is the root of the problem? EllenCT (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You assume your bias is giving you the correct conclusion. A better analogy would be to compare your bias to 1+1 = window. Bias is not the root of the problem here though. The root of the problem is that 1.you are not listening and 2.you refuse to accept that you have misinterpreted the source. Even though several, several editors have repeated it to you ad nauseum. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think 1+1=window is a better example? A window is not a number. Why do you think I am not listening? You are correct, I believe I am interpreting all 11 of the sources provided in the peer reviewed causal review correctly and in the same way the authors plainly state my interpretation. Why do you believe that the peer reviewers might have missed the hypothesized error? EllenCT (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I would generally suggest at this point people stop responding to EllenCT as their above posts are pretty much the entire problem. Evidence has been presented by numerous people regarding either deliberate or incompetant source misrepresentation, IDHT and other issues. This board is not to resolve content discussions so arguing the *same* content discussion over and over again is a waste of everyone's time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I will not be engaging in any further long drawn out discussions over content. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: I think we've reached that point, yes, and I'll stop now. However, I think the above discussion has been pretty useful as a direct demonstration of the problems; it's certainly convinced me. GoldenRing (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, editors with opinions on the content disputes should be commenting at Talk:Economic growth#RFC on relation of inequality to growth and Talk:Economic stagnation#RFC on international and secular theory sections, not here at ANI. EllenCT (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it is very telling that there's like four or five editors above (GoldenRing, Sphilbrick, JBhunley, probably a few others) who came here either thinking "EllenCT didn't do anything wrong" or with a blank slate and no prior involvement and then EllenCT has quickly managed to alienate and frustrate every single one of them. Yes guys, it's THAT insane to try and deal with her. She'll insist on her "2+2=5" and then even give you sources which clearly state that 2+2=4 and still insist that no, the sources say it's 5. Like the rest of you, I have no idea if this is simple incompetence or a purposeful tactic used to obfuscate and derail discussions when they don't go her way. What I do know is that this is the kind of behavior that people have had to deal with on these articles for the past two or three years. She has managed to escape sanction before because she is very good at poisoning the well and attacking her opponents (Phmoreno in particular). But really, this needs to stop. As I mentioned above, it is impossible to make REAL improvements to the articles (like those suggested by Lant Pritchett and other academics) because EllenCT's obsessive tendentious behavior always gets in the way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I note with sadness that Marek still refuses to acknowledge that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources (bona fide literature review articles in academic journals) which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all came to the same conclusion: that inequality inhibits growth. And all these years without once producing a secondary source that reaches the contrary conclusion. Yes, there is at least one secondary literature review which does not reach a conclusion, but so far all my detractors have only been able to come up with one such inconclusive secondary source. Why Marek thinks that personal attacks and accusations of bias against anything other than the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature are a reasonable basis to try to argue for article text which leads explicitly opposing that conclusion is beyond me. EllenCT (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support I've gone through two of the sources now. They don't support EllenCT's argument in the least. The continued, endless argument that they do in the face of all evidence to the contrary goes beyond IDHT at this point. Capeo (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Which two sources? Do you deny my central contention that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all concluded that inequality inhibits growth? EllenCT (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

One, yes, I do. Two, that wasn't even the contention you made. I'm not going to respond anymore by the way. Enough has been said above. Capeo (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. (edit conflict) I'm not interested in delving into the economics topic, but the behavior outlined here is nothing new outside the topic either. Similar behavior was discussed in a protracted ANI in an entirely different topic ranging from content and source competency issues, aspersions to attack editors, etc. that are so closely tied to content that it's difficult for the community to sort it out.[154] If sources have also been misrepresented in this topic, it is part of ongoing trend. After not being involved with EllenCT for some time now since that ANI, it doesn't look this behavior has improved seeing Volunteer Marek's summary above. If the topic ban is imposed, EllenCT should also be reminded that a short WP:ROPE would apply in any topics outside economics as a reminder to knock this behavior off in general. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based not on all the MEGO economics stuff, which I frankly cannot follow, but on EllenCT's behavior in this thread and Kingofaces43's comment just above mine. Because of this, the closer may wish to downgrade my support, but it's obvious to me now that EllenCT brings disruption with her by the very nature of her pattern of discussion. (And believe me, I have no great love or respect for some of the people on the other side of the issue, so this is not an "us vs. them" !vote.) BMK (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support The misrepresented sources, IDHT, and dogged determination to bludgeon a POV are clear in this thread. I've not been involved, but I've occasionally seen it in passing, or on Jimbotalk. Having now seen it demonstrated right here, and made just a small foray into looking at the locus, I have no hesitation in supporting this as a solution. We tolerate this kind of time-sink disruption too often. Let's not. Begoon ^talk 13:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to close

Consensus on the topic ban seems clear, with only one objection. The content discussions, while interesting, are not serving to move the thread forward or change the existing consensus or opinions. The content would be best explored on the relevant talk pages where editors interested in the topics rather than the ban discussion can benefit from the insights. Jbh^Talk 19:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think I've not been upholding the reliable source criteria far more accurately than my detractors? I note that very few actual administrators have weighed in. Most of the people supporting the arbcom referral and the topic ban proposals are the same tag team who always show up in ANI complaints about me. If there is a topic ban, do you suppose it would preclude responding to the RFCs that were requested from the RSN discussion? Would it preclude mediation? Do you deny my central contention that all of the peer reviewed secondary sources which have reached a conclusion on the question since 1997 have all concluded that inequality inhibits growth? EllenCT (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would preclude you participating in any discussions having to do economics broadly construed with only the exceptions set out in WP:BANEX. While I am not an admin I would think that the topic ban would include every thing from taxation to trade, through micro and macro economic theory, monetary policy, growth, inequality and the effects of those things on populations, nations or subdivisions thereof. In general it would also include wealth generation, distribution and redistribution along with the theories, applications and results thereof. Plus all of the various schools of economic theory and their proponents from Keynes to Marx. Supply side theory, trickle-down, Globalism, Mercantilism and even Adam Smith etc etc.

Topic bans typically include all pages in all namespaces which relate to the topic and specific sections within articles or pages which relate to the topic even if the entire article or page is not covered by the ban cf. you could still edit RSN but not a thread discussing sourcing relating economic growth or other economics related topic. It precludes mediation, RfCs and Noticeboard discussions except as noted in WP:BANEX. See WP:TOPICBAN.

As to the rightness or wrongness of your position, that is irrelevant now except insomuch as the above threads relating to sources seem to have adequately demonstrated the misapplication/misuse and/or misinterpretation of sources and your total inability to recognize others' arguements. Right or wrong is now no longer the issue but rather the disruption you have been shown to bring to the topic area which is what the community is responding to here. Should a ban be imposed WP:UNBAN says "you may appeal (and comment in an appeal discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard, or at requests for arbitration." Jbh^Talk 02:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding, "As to the rightness or wrongness of your position, that is irrelevant now except insomuch as the above threads relating to sources seem to have adequately demonstrated the misapplication/misuse and/or misinterpretation of sources and your total inability to recognize others' arguements," I'm confident that the discussion clearly shows that I haven't misapplied, misused, or misinterpreted sources beyond the occasional trivial mistake, and I have clearly addressed the central point of all the other arguments. The only people complaining of disruption are those who are convinced, without evidence, that I have been trying to push anything more than the consensus of the secondary reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If the above doesn't represent a consensus to impose a topic ban, I can't see what would. Can we get the attention of someone uninvolved, please? GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Someone please close this so it does not just archive off with no resolution. Jbh^Talk 10:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  A light-hearted comment but, is anybody uninvolved even left? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Not involved (not an admin either), but the admin that DOES close this is owed a beer or two. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: For those who still want ArbCom, there's nothing preventing anyone from opening an ArbCom request, even now before this is closed. It wouldn't be the first time an ArbCom case request was filed before an ANI thread was closed. Of course, if the editors who are pushing for ArbCom involvement are waiting to see whether or a topic ban will be enacted by the closer of this ANI, that's one thing. But nothing is stopping anyone from going to ArbCom, either now or after this ANI closes. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe most of the Arbcom supports are because ANI/AE had not been able to address the issues, I know that is why I supported taking it to Arbcom. This ANI thread has come up with solid support for a topic ban which will at least addresses the problem presented and discussed. Jbh^Talk 12:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I think that's exactly right. The arbcom supports were largely on the assumption that no consensus would be reached here. However, there is, imo, a strong consensus for a topic ban. Begoon ^talk 13:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Are we really going to have to post a request at WP:AN just to find someone to close this? GoldenRing (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, either that or come back everyday to ask why it hasn't been closed yet. Either solution works fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Scope

I hope the closing admin will clarify the scope, specifically, whether it includes Jimbo's talk page. A topic ban of "Economics, broadly construed" would include posting at his talk page. It is my impression that Jimbo would prefer to allow broad access to that talk page (he has, on occasion, disinvited specific individuals). I suggest that any topic ban should have an exception for that page, i.e., if generally topic banned, that ban should not extend to that page. This is both my personal view, as well as my understanding of what Jimbo would prefer.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans do not work when there are loopholes. Also EllenCT's contributions at Jimbo's page are mainly to harangue him about his past (possibly present, no one other than Ellen really cares) economic views - probably due to Ellen's hatred of 'Randroids'. A topic ban on economics is a topic ban on economics. It would not ban her from Jimbo's page, just from talking about economics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming that if the topic ban is for "Economics, broadly construed", EllenCT could still post to Jimbo's talk page as long as it's not economics related.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll be happy to let the closing admin decide. I see decent arguments on both sides. While I expressed my preference, my main point is that the closing admin should address it, so that if it is the desire to either include or exclude that page from the ban, it is clearly stated, not assumed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban is a topic ban. Allowing a special loophole for continued soapboxing is of benifit to no one nor to Wikipedia. Jimbo's page has been a traditional haven from forum shopping, canvassing and even small leeway for community banned editors but I know of no exceptions, express or implied, for allowing topic banned editors to post on anything related to their ban other than the, rather pointless, "appeal to Jimbo" to void the ban. Jbh^Talk 15:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

- who says allowing her to post this to Jimbo's talk page would interfere with anything? I'm not sure it's a wise idea under the present circumstances but I'd leave it to her call. Besides, I thought Jimbo had broad leeway to operate with an "open door policy" even toward out and out banned editors, let alone topic-banned editors. More relevantly, I think EllenCT should have leeway to present an Arbcom case about the article and some of the editors who showed up here if she wants, especially since that vote above was in favor (myself notwithstanding). Wnt (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that filing an Arbcom case has always been viewed as a general exception to a topic ban (if not it obviously should be). I think there may have been cases of editors who abused that privilege, but that doesn't apply here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presenting an ArbCom case is within WP:BANEX at least insomuch as it can be seen as an appeal. Nor is there any claim here that this topic ban would prevent EllenCT from posting on Jimbo's talk page about topics other than what are covered by her ban. Whatever the case, the community has settled on a topic ban and a straight up topic ban should be imposed. If EllenCT wants to argue that she can post on JimboTalk she can bring up the question at AN as a clairification allowed per BANEX. The question does not need to be resolved here (particularly since the arguement being made is one which would apply to all community imposed bans) nor is the question a reason to avoide closing and implementing the topic ban overwhelmingly supported above. Jbh^Talk 14:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, there's no point leaving it as something for clarification and "more drama" when there's no reason to impose such a thing in the first place. Jimbo's talk page seems as much an expected exception as Arbcom, and for the same reason - they trace back to the same process, even if the former is no longer practically relevant as a route of appeal.

I think it should also be clarified, at least, that any restriction pertains only within the science of economics. As I've said, I think the other side has its own POV issues, and I don't want to see Ellen dragged here because she posted the cost of a battleship or the predicted revenue from a new tax, provided that these are simply news items or political arguments rather than scientific economic analyses, i.e. mathematically predicting broad aspects of the economy as a whole. If we're going to let people get pushy and call any reference to something that costs or makes money "economics", she might as well pack it in now. Wnt (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a fair point, "economics broadly construed" could actually get out of hand here. Perhaps "Economic sciences" or "Economic studies" would be a more appropriate title for the ban. Then again, topic-ban should clear that issue up in and of itself. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you'all really want to start up another proposal and allow this to turn into another unsolved morass? Topic bans have been handed out for years. The proposed ban was economics broadly construed we are not going to be able to modify that and implicitly change the !votes above without another proposal. That seems frankly silly considering how many times the problems have been brought up for resolution and how strong the consensus is above.

If you think JimboTalk should be an explicitly exception to topic bans then bring it up on the policy page. If you think it is a tacit exception then present that arguement if EllenCT posts about economics there and someone asks for sanction. Jbh^Talk 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to change anything about the proposal. Only clarifying what should be obvious, are we really going to ban somebody from editing an article and putting in a dollar sign with a value followed by it (no seriously are we)? Using the example above of placing the cost of a battleship or aircraft carrier in an article. Fine carry on with "economics broadly construed" that's fine, but keep in mind that even something as minor as putting in one missing "$" symbol could be construed as violating a topic ban for "economics broadly construed". However, you're probably right that changing economics to economics studies would veto the above proposal. The best solution may be to leave everything as is, and cross any necessary bridges when we get there, I would hope that everyone has their wits about them and does not go on a rampage over "$". If they do, then, WP:BOOMERANG. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would certianly support a boomerang against someone playing "got ya" over something like that. Economics is indeed a very broad category but it would be very hard to stretch it to $ signs etc. Our article gives a good working definition "Economics is the social science that describes the factors that determine the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services." while the broadly construed would tack on things like policy, practitioners, schools of thought, politics surrounding and controversies relating to etc. Note I an just providing this as explanatory context, not proposing that this should be how the ban above should be written or specificly interpreted. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that my editing behavior has been superior to my detractors here because I have better upheld the reliable source criteria. I deny that I misrepresented or misconstrued sources beyond occasional minor mistakes. When legitimate flaws have been pointed out, I have improved my included text and sourcing, corrected my behavior, and apologized, in contrast to my detractors who have remained steadfast and stubborn in their false accusations in the face of clear corrections. Therefore, I repeat my request for boomerang sanctions. EllenCT (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediation?

Is anyone opposed to mediation? Are any mediators able and willing? EllenCT (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I advised you here to clarify what your content dispute was about and submit an RfC about it. Did you do it? If you did, could you please provide a link to the RfC? I think this should be done prior to starting mediation, arbitration or any other drastic steps. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I had hoped to get a better idea of the locus of dispute with my questions at Talk:Economic growth#Inequality before composing one. I just now opened Talk:Economic stagnation#RFC on international and secular theory sections and Talk:Economic growth#RFC on relation of inequality to growth. EllenCT (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, but I had hoped you would be able to express in a few phrases what exactly was the essence of the content disagreement, rather than simply asking "which version is better?". This is not helpful. Your RfC does not provide any link to relevant discussion. Could you also please answer to this comment by VM? At the first glance, it appears that he is right and you misrepresent sources. But I am not an expert on this subject and could be mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The main disagreement is whether inequality inhibits or promotes growth. All of the peer reviewed literature reviews which reach a conclusion on that question say that inequality inhibits growth, and greater income equality stimulates growth through agregate demand. Here is a discussion of some of them. There is at least one secondary source which does not reach a conclusion on the question. The disagreement on the stagnation article has to do with international characterizations and whether there are any reliable sources indicating that secular stagnation theory has ever stood the test of time. I responded to Marek's question in the subsection above. EllenCT (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that lots of sources for "income inequality" "economic growth" come up on Google Scholar. Incredibly, enough PDFs for these come up on the right hand side of the page that I thought I'd accidentally gone on Sci-Hub for a moment. The way I'd like to see this addressed is that people list all the papers that look at the relationship between the two, summarize each paper - strictly according to what it says, without any deductions! - and put all of them into some relevant article. You could organize them by viewpoint but I'd prefer virtually any other sorting scheme, such as country or methodology, and preserve "threading" of papers when one reevaluates or criticizes or expands/confirms the viewpoint of another. This is something that everyone here in theory could do together, provided that the temptations to draw excessive conclusions on one side or to strike out sources seen as wrong on the other were resisted. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Re the two above linked RfCs. They are poorly formed and look like they were just thrown up to get an RfC open to say there is an open RfC. Any uninvolved editor would need to pick through two versions shown in a single diff rather than having two clear statements and attached refs to compare. It is either tactical or there is a CIR issue regarding articulating and formulating the matters at issue. Jbh^Talk 20:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, asking for a comparison between two revisions is an established RFC practice when the parties can not agree on the specific locus of dispute. EllenCT (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Making editors pick the competing versions out of a single diff and not having the competing versions presented in the RfC so they can be referred to most certianly is not though. Anyway, I have requested you reform the RfCs so the competing wording can be seen, referred to and discussed on the relevant talk pages. You will either do so or not. Jbh^Talk 21:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What prevents editors from being able to see and refer to the alternative wording in the diff? EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I presented you with a request and a reason. You may choose to respond courteously to the request - acknowledging that the issue I complained about is one I truly believe to be a barrier to bringing in uninvolved participants - or not. I see no further need to engage with you on this issue it is a simple yes or no request. So yes? or no? Jbh^Talk 01:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it might be more courteous to do the work you ask yourself instead of implying that I am somehow obligated to do it? I will be happy to answer your question if you can provide some reason that you must think editors might not be able to see or refer to the alternative wording from the diffs. EllenCT (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're asking JBH to work out what the dispute is that you and other editors are having for you? did I understand that correctly? Mr rnddude (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be... that and wanting me to screw around rewording another editor's RfC when they have already refused to make the requested change. Yeah, I will get around to that just after I finish my evening waltz in a minefield. </sarcasm>

I do like the redirect/refuse/avoid tactic being used though, it illustrates IDHT/BATTLE behavior perfectly. It also shows how pointless mediation would be. Jbh^Talk 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC) What's the point obvious behavior is obvious Jbh^Talk 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Failed mediation This so called mediation is a perfect example of her disruptive behavior. After being told by several editors that her version of Economic stagnation with an Internationally section following the lede was not supported by the sources, was off topic and was out of place, she called for an RFC and proposed the same version. This is some sort of serious personality disorder. EllenCT does not gave a damn about what others think or about the quality of her edits. It would only take a few editors like her to turn Wikipedia into a sham. She is never going to change and the only hope is to have her banned.Phmoreno (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

To state that another editor, even a habitually disruptive editor, has a personality disorder is either a diagnosis requiring clinical credentials or a personal attack. Since I don't think that there has been clinical interaction, it seems like a personal attack. This has nothing to do with the merits of the case, except that civility is required even with respect to disruptive editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem awfully intent on having her removed from the Wikipedia community. I don't view that any more favourably then most other editors here. As for the RfC, yes of course she presented her own version that's half the point. The RfC presents two competing views and asks for 'consensus' on which one is more accurate or what have you. So no that does not show any form of a personality disorder and I'd suggest you pull the PA out of the discussion. You took this to AN/I to have the issue resolved, so why are you adding to it with unnecessary attacks? I do however have to strike my comment about the RfC since I now realize that you are referring to the globalization comment that has repeatedly been explained to her as being OR. My apologies. Unfortunately that is the content in dispute here, I think the opening of the RfC was a misguided attempt at starting a mediation discussion. Whether that's a case of IDHT or not, I don't know to be honest. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think EllenCT should be or deserves to be banned from Wikipedia as a whole. However in certain topics - and on these articles in particular - some kind of sanction, like a topic ban is both needed and deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Also and more to the point, there is yet to be any mediation so I don't see how you figure that it has failed. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• Note It was very popular in the fifteenth century; however, I think you are being overly positive here – there are plenty of examples of failed arbitrations, where one party is disatisfied, and violence or litigation breaks out again. _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

  Are you referring to my comments or Phromeno's? I feel like it's directed to me but that placing of the comment suggests otherwise. Or is it a general statement? Mr rnddude (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Mediation would be appropriate if the RFCs fail. EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC presentation

Since the question of RFC presentation has been raised, I am interested in others' opinions as to how to present multi-column comparisons of formatted wikitext when relatively wide graphics with small captions are involved, or if you think the diffs are sufficient in such cases please say that too. I am not sure sub-column comparison formatting is superior to the permalinks in the diffs when graphics are involved. EllenCT (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The best that I can suggest is, take the wikitext (without images) and place them in the RfC. Label which bit of wikitext is which, by this I mean label the text you have added (and the sources you have used, correct page is important here) and label the text that existed prior to (or after) your revision. As for the diagrams, are you using the diagrams to support your conclusions? if so, then possibly link the diagrams to the RfC with either a hyperlink to the original or through a diff. Finally what is the question? which is better?, which is properly sourced? or what? By this I mean to state clearly what it is you are asking for consensus on. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• @EllenCT: Thank you for working to address my concern. Jbh^Talk 13:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive language and threats

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

in Greek or greeklish, used in edit summaries and user talk pages during the last couple of days via ip 77.49.42.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1, 2, 3) and 77.49.71.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (4, 5, 6). Despite receiving a stern warning by User:Sro23, disruptive conduct was continued for editing the same articles and the latter's talk page via ip 77.49.23.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (7, 8, 9, 10). Please note that the behaviour described, follows reversion of edits with no citation made by these ip. As seen in the articles' revision history (a b, c), a number of different users –apart from Sro23– have proceeded to the reversions.

In parallel with a second warning already been given, I think that all 8 edit summaries (in bold) should be removed, as well as the two personal attacks (3 and 10). Thank you in advance for your interest.

PS judging from the articles that the anon is generally interested in (a, b, c, d) and especially from this diff of June 18th (in comparison with the rev. history of article d), he may well be Vrahomarinaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using ip to "express himself" in inappropriate ways without his account being blocked. Vrahomarinaner (contributions in Greek WP: here) is currently on a monthly ban in gr:WP for edit warring, 3RR, abuse of own talk page while being blocked from editing, sock-puppetry and multiple breaches of bans via several ip. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, Google translate does a good job of translating his insults, he starts off by calling a reverter a wanker ( "malakes" means "wanker"), he evolves to call people assholes in Greek as well.

Yeah, I'd say he needs a block. KoshVorlon 15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for making you –and anybody else– to translate and read "material" of this kind. Not sorry that the job Google translate does, is not that good actually (the a...s word was used in a far more abusive way). Although Vrahomarinaner both has admitted already he is the anon user (calling me a snitcher in Greek) and has well been into breaking 3RR (6 reverts starting with this diff), the removal of the aforementioned 10 edit summaries and comments is far more important in my opinion. --Στέλιος Πετρουλάκης (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Vrahomarinaner blocked 3 days with a clear warning that continuing the same behavior will result in much longer blocks. If IPs show up they will likely have to be blocked individually as blocking the /17 range may cause collateral damage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

continued unjustified content removal

• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Amamedli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Palace of the Shirvanshahs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:HistoryofIran removes well justified revision without engaging in a debate. Several discussions have ensued on Palace of the Shirvanshahs page regarding Persian language transliteration having historical justification. I have made a sustained good faith effort to debate this subject but have been stonewalled by this user who appears to be less interested in historical facts and Wikipedia conventions and more interested in inserting Persian language transliteration on this page (to my knowledge he has made no other contributions to this page). On June 2 I was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, an attack which was coordinated and reported between this and another user. In response I provided a structured and detailed justification for removal of Persian language transliteration. I waited three weeks and no responses have been provided by this or any other user. I provided a notice yesterday that due to lack of responses I will make the change, however this user has immediately undone the revision and again provided no justification. Would ask admin interference to bring good faith into this nonsensical behavior.

(cur | prev) 14:21, 21 June 2016‎ Amamedli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,422 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Undid revision 726243631 by HistoryofIran (talk) I have provided pages of justification, which you haven't replied to in spite my direct address to you. Can you be serious?) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:42, 20 June 2016‎ HistoryofIran (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,466 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (Not a proper justification at all, just your own opinion where you ignore every other statement/source and think your word is supreme. Take your concerns to an admin.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:02, 20 June 2016‎ Amamedli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,422 bytes) (-44)‎ . . (Removed Persian transliteration. Detailed justification on talk page posted on June 3rd. If you disagree, please discuss on talkpage) (undo)

I have made many appeals to bring common sense into this discussion. Here is one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amamedli (talk • contribs) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTTHEM.142.105.159.60 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well the IP editor has a point. Coming here with "I was blocked for edit warring based on a coordinated effort of others" is not a good argument. Now Talk:Palace_of_the_Shirvanshahs#Need_Opinions_.28transliteration.29 has no response but I am completely baffled at what is being asked for there. What exactly do you want done? I have no idea what all that writing has to do with your recent editing related to including a Persian version there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The poster, User:Amamedli, was blocked for edit warring on Palace of the Shirvanshahs on June 2. The report was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317#User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked). It appeared that Amamedli was warring to give precedence to the Azeri translation of the article name rather than the Persian translation. Arguing about whose nationality should come first is a classic symptom of nationalist edit warring. It is not very useful to come to WP:ANI and complain that others do not agree with you on the article talk page. It is not up to admins whose version is best, it is up to the consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. The only issue is the lack of discussion on the talk page and since it's not even clear the talk page is being used for nothing more than a dumping ground and insults at the other editors, thus my comment. I don't see anything about their actual concerns. Should we suggest, WP:DROPing the stick and moving on? Closing as no action taken? Would this fall under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 and a simply 1RR or topic ban be appropriate? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to stipulate that user Anamedli has been on Wikipedia for little more than a month, while some ~80% of his contributions so far have been solely to the topic the "Palace of the Shirvanshahs", and then specifically regarding the exclusion, position change, and removal of its Persian translation. I call that pretty much a WP:SPA account. He first started to change the placement of the translation, while some days later he started to entirely remove the Persian transliteration. We've been going over the inclusion of the translation for a very long time, as is visible on the talk page, only back then with a different user. The "new" user here in question, Anamedli, simply jumped in some time after the initial user in question who wanted the same thing (Interfase) had no sourced grounds to stand on, had lost the argument, and started to bring up his whole own ideas and self-made formulations as for why the translation should be removed. Anamedli does pretty much the same thing; he tells them in his edit summaries, as well as at the talk page. Funny thing is regarding the whole matter is, is that the talk page is full of sources posted by user HistoryofIran that actually show that the dynasty that founded the palace had been thoroughly Persianized in all possible ways well before the foundation of the palace. But all that is completely futile with such users, based on my long empirical experience. Even if you'd post 99 sources, you're usually still wasting your time, because you're argueing with an agenda, not with ratio.

That all said, all that Anamedli is doing, in his very short and rather dubious period of time here on Wikipedia, is to remove the translation (by the classical means of edit warring), and dropping historical revisionism on the talk page in the form of completely unrelated WP:tl;dr information, as well as, most importantly, self-made WP:OR fabrications. He lumps totally unrelated sources together, sources that tell nothing about the topic, but just in the feigned attempt to prove his ungrounded point, while ignoring the already posted sources that mention the topic specifically. His way of reasoning is: "The region of modern-day Azerbaijan was Turkicized some time in history, therefore this dynasty HAS, I repeat HAS, to have been Persianized as well, because I say so. No, I can't remotely find any sources about this self-made idea, but because I say so, and I just don't like what I'm seeing, I'll do everything that I can in order to remove this material. If I have to impose WP:OR and resort to edit warring, that's fine.").

Unfortunately, this is all typical irridentist behaviour that is, unfortunately, so commmon on articles of the region (Armenia/Iran/Azerbaijan/Georgia/Turkey). Look at the other IP's and sock/WP:SPA accounts that visit Wikipedia every day en masse, and please tell me otherwise. This matter was long done when user Interfase couldn't bring even 1 counter source to HistoryofIran's sources on the talk page, but its being all refurbished right now for no reason.

Oh, lastly; he started to edit war as of yesterday again (20-06-2016). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

once again, All I hear back from you guys is a) amamedli was blocked for edit warring (yes, doesn't make me wrong on the points raised though :)) b) he has been here less than a month (LouisAragon seems to think this is an argument against me.... yes, but this doesn't make me wrong either) c) nationalistic motivations (come on, those where already here :)).... note that none of the above proves me wrong on the point I am raising, which is that Persian transliteration does NOT belongs on this page. Three reasons listed (#1, #2, #3) on talk page. Yes it has been discussed with User:Interfase. In what way does this prove my suggestion wrong? Cultural heritage deserves to be properly reflected, not by users citing tenure but by calm common sense and objectivism. This is meant to be forum of good faith. Can we have some of that please? Can we look at the facts? Anyone? Humor me User:LouisAragon. You can question my motivations, but why won't you put two sentences together with a plausible argument that Persian language transliteration belongs on this page. I am not disputing that they were Persionized, but to include language transliteration, you have to show the Palace was named in Persian. I am demonstrating that by 15th century all of Shirvan was Turkish speaking including within the confines of the actual Palace in question. You haven't disproven one of my sources or arguments. Just capitalizing "HAS, HAS" is not an argument (why all the anger). Can you justify the accusations of 'self-made fabrications'. WHAT SPECIFICALLY did I fabricate? Specifically please. Don't masquerade as an impartial third party. I almost spat my drink when I read your "isn't it sad about this region" comment. And this User:Interfase argument

User:Ricky81682... yes, nationalism is very present here. Can you bring much needed objectivism into this mess? Can you help ensure that facts actually matter, or are we going to just let them be brushed aside in favor of condescending reflections e.g. 'classic signs of nationalism'? I assert that Persian language has zero connection to the Palace of the Shirvanshahs. Persian transliteration doesn't belong on this page anymore than Navajo belongs on the Hoover Dam article... is this an exercise is superficiality or is there actually any interest to get to the TRUTH? I am motivated by displaying Azerbaijan's architectural heritage truthfully, but just accusing me of 'nationalism' doesn't disprove my points. In fact it potentially promotes the opposing nationalism (represented by HistoryofIran and LouisAragon)... dang, forgot to sign (my bad) Amamedli (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, what's my next step here? As you can see I have received zero engagement from HistoryofIran and LouisAragon on this matter. There is no way to establish consensus since these two users are biased in favor of Persian heritage but don't bother to engage in a meaningful discussion. The way facts are being brushed aside by all involved users (including on this page) is worthy of Exupery's pen . I have argued a solid case, and my correction is fully justified, but it is being obstructed by the above two users.

Ejpolaron's image uploads

Ejpolaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been uploading a large number of images lately. Almost all of them have been uploaded without copyright tags and a number of them were copied from other websites (e.g File:Zambales Mango.jpeg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/zambales-seeks-p200-m-grant-to-develop-mango-industry/), thus I did post on their talk page informing them that copyright tags are needed and that copying images from other websites with no evidence of free publication is not OK. Later, though, they have restarted uploading these untagged images, some of which are again copied from other websites when there is no evidence of a free license; e.g File:Hermana-minor-island.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from https://tonetcarlo.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/our-flying-date-with-two-sisters-in-zambales/ and File:Whiterock Beach and Waterpark Subic.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from http://www.agoda.com/white-rock-waterpark-and-beach-hotel/hotel/subic-zambales-ph.html. Evidently, my prior request didn't work.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, primarily to get their attention since they don't seem to see the raft of talk-page warnings. It's interesting that they seem to edit only in the Northern Hemisphere summer. Miniapolis 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:JPadizas22

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

JPadizas22 (talk · contribs) seems to be a clear sockpuppet of the blocked User:Jaypeeboyadizas22 with their username and their byte-by-byte recreation of the deleted article Swinging the Kundiman. (Old version) Opencooper (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sock blocked, article deleted --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New range block requested for LTA vandal

There's an LTA vandal who primarily operates on the 166.137, 166.173, and 166.177 ranges. You can read a detailed report at User:NinjaRobotPirate/Animation hoaxer#Copycat, but the short version is that the vandal adds hoax casting information, mostly to animated children's films. For example, he might change edit Disney's Aladdin to say that Liam Neeson played the Genie, then add a bunch of Rugrats characters in a fictional crossover.

I previously requested range blocks on this LTA vandal here, here, and here. On June 18, two range blocks timed out, and vandal edits almost immediately started up again on one of the ranges, including the following:

• 166.137.216.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.217.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 166.137.218.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

So, I'm requesting that 166.137.216.0/22 be range blocked once again for continued vandalism once the block timed out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

As the individual has resumed their disruptive editing, I have reinstated the block on 166.137.216.0/22. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Saturday Night Sport Time Live - hoax?

I AFDed the article just now, but the article creator is a sock of a persistent hoaxer. It's an unsourced article that was DEPRODed, and I'm not sure whether somebody missed it, or what. My view of CSDable material tends to be broader than what actually gets CSDed, and while my nom convinces me, I don't feel that I can 100% exhaust every avenue on this to definitively state that it is a hoax, mainly because I'm not in Australia. I'm dumping it here because if somebody can make that call and kill the AfD, that would be better than letting it run and wasting people's time. MSJapan (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Abusive IP

Could an admin please rev del this edit and consider blocking the IP. It is probably a sock of 808alles looking at the edit history . This edit is clearly designed to discourage editors from maintaining this article - a common tactic of direct action activists.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have rev deled the edit summary. I haven't blocked the IP but if another admin thinks it's necessary then please do. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistent restores of material without proper citations - Butterfly effect in popular culture

• Butterfly effect in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few weeks ago I nominated the article for deletion. The deletion ended with no consensus. Recently a different editor nominated the article for merge, the discussion is still ongoing; I neither support nor oppose the merge.

While these discussions were going on, I performed cleanup on the article several times - each time providing an edit summary for the what and why of the edit - almost all the edits are removal of "self-sourcing examples" per a consensus from a discussion on WP:POPCULT. When my first edit, which was monolithic, was ill-received, I broke it down to smaller edits - each time describing that either there are no citations or that they fail the "self-sourcing examples" threshold.

These "self-sourcing examples" and other unsourced or poorly sourced material is repeatedly restored despite WP:V clearly stating that the material needs to be properly cited. Editors use various excuses

• "the examples are proof in and of themselves" - this is against consensus of this discussion
• "illegitimate blanking / mass-deletions" - this is not true; the material is removed in accordance to consensus on WP:V, the WP:V policy itself, and of course because removal of uncited or unencyclopedic material is not vandalism
• "do not edit while there's ongoing discussion" - this is contentious at best, the deletion discussion is over and no edit can affect it; the merge discussion is also unaffected by removal of uncited and poorly-cited material.
• "restoring stable version" - there's no policy on Wikipedia that prefers the "stable version" over the removal of uncited and poorly-cited material

My reasons for removing the uncited and poorly cited material are detailed on the talk page at considerable length (and also detailed above).

How can I make sure the uncited and poorly-cited material is not endlessly restored? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

BrightRoundCircle I just took a look and I agree with you, the examples given are pretty poorly sourced and shouldn't be in that article, most of them border on Synth or OR. KoshVorlon 11:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

82.219.6.*

Multiple subproxies of IP vandalizing IT risk. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So do you suggest semi-protection and / or a rangeblock? _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi'd for three days. If someone can substitute an appropriate rangeblock, feel free to unprotect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock as one of the proxies (**.**.*.130) has started vandalizing on Fast food. --MarioProtIV (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

82.219.6.128/25 blocked 3 days. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Mass cat blanking

• HowAboutNo91 (talk · contribs)

Blanking of 'American politicians convicted of crimes' from multiple articles, without explanation. As well, blanking of several requests for explanation from his/her talk page. Perhaps there's a constructive rationale for the edits, but given the mass deletions and lack of response or explanation, I'm wondering what it is. Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I removed an unnecessary category from a few articles, as the politicians in question already had a category on their page which said Category:(State) politicians convicted of crimes. HowAboutNo91 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide some help:diffs to back up your statement, or be more specific on which articles exactly are being affected. Also noting the above, are portions of articles being removed or are categories being removed?

It occurs to me that contributions can be checked, will provide a couple diffs in a second. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple of diffs, 1. Edit summary of wrong state, if it's the wrong state then move it to the right one don't just unilaterally delete it. Given the source comes from Pittsburgh this might not even be the wrong state. [155] 2. Provides no context for removing the content.[156] and 3. Is however actually properly done as the people involved were not elected politicians [157] This person appears to be working in good faith but with imperfect judgement. That is all I can say. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Account showed up suddenly to edit-war, showed a suspicious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia

BiblioJordan (talk · contribs) appears not to be here.

This doesn't look like the kind of edit (summary) typical of the first edit of a new, good-faith user, and within a few days of suddenly appearing and starting to edit-war, they were already forum-shopping their dispute to RSN. I suspect this user may be a sockpuppet -- there has been no IP edit-warring recently on that page, so it's not a long-time anonymous user who decided to create an account -- but I have no idea of whom so I can't open an SPI.

It doesn't really matter, though, since the battleground behaviour alone warrants either a block or at least some eyes.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I note that three separate accounts have been inserting the same disputed material into the Neoliberalism article...

  User:C.J. Griffin, here

  User:Feminist2016, here, here.

  User:BiblioJordan, here, here, here.

Similarly, this addition by C.J. Griffin was reverted, then reinstated by BiblioJordan.

C.J. Griffin seems like a respectable long-term contributor, but the other two both registered on June 13. Perhaps enough for a CheckUser check, at least on the two newbies? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The two new accounts are a somewhat  Possible match to one another, but they're editing from different ISPs in different cities, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're the same person. Perhaps there is another explanation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that BiblioJordan is an WP:SPA at least. It's an account that looks to have been created specifically to edit war to keep material critical of Hillary Clinton in the neoliberalism article (material that obviously shouldn't be in the article -- I'm surprised to see an experienced editor involved in restoring it). His/her only edit to any other article has been to the feminism article, adding "False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton" to further reading. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The combination of clearly having experience here in the past, and edit warring right from the get go gives me the impression that this is an inappropriate use of an alternate account at best. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the Faux reference from Feminism, and my removal has been reverted by the user, in case anyone wants to fight that battle. TimothyJosephWood 15:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Further FYI: the reference on Feminism was re-reverted by Bugs and seems to have stuck. I removed the content from Neoliberalism, was reverted by BiblioJordan. I re-reverted and addressed on talk. We'll see if they decide to war of this too I suppose. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why lack of long experience editing Wikipedia pages should automatically disqualify someone from contributing. Shouldn't the merits of their arguments be more important? I'll note that I did not make the initial edits to the Neoliberalism page, but was spurred to start contributing when a couple of other editors tried to delete all mentions of Hillary Clinton. The other editors on this thread seem to agree that the reference to Clinton "obviously shouldn't be in the article," but no reasonable justification (or indeed, any justification at all) for that opinion is given.

Incidentally, the "forum-shopping" allegation is unwarranted. Given the behavior of several editors on the Neoliberalism page, I sought formal mediation to resolve the dispute. The request was denied given that there was insufficient prior discussion, and I was advised to take up the matter first at the RSN and then at the Neutrality noticeboard before again requesting mediation. BiblioJordan (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Your very first edit, 8 days ago, was to attack other users.[158] That's the kind of first-edit usually made by someone who won't be here very long. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That edit was to undo an unjustified deletion of relevant information. By framing my edit as simply a personal "attack" you are diverting attention from the substance of the disputes at hand.

Again, I don't see why being new to the world of Wikipedia editing should disqualify me. I am flattered that the initiator of this complaint accuses me of having "a suspicious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia." I confess to not being a long-time Wikipedia editor/gatekeeper, but I have indeed tried to learn all the rules. I only ask that my contributions and justifications be judged on merits, and not dismissed a priori given my newness, my "suspicious" level of knowledge (!), or my political perspective. BiblioJordan (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• DoRD, thanks for checking. User:Timothyjosephwood, please combine edits--I had to go through over a hundred of your edits to get to the meat. I have removed a sentenced containing a phrase inserted or reinserted by BiblioJordan: there is no page number cited for Western, I can't find "militarized policing" in that book, I am not sure why Davis and Western would be referenced together with a cite for Western's book--and, BiblioJordan, your "heavily promoted by the Clinton administration" has all the academic quality and trustworthiness of a Trump tweet. "Heavily promoted" is already HS writing (where every verb requires an adverb), and the phrasing is at least tendentious. Worse, I doubt very much whether this is in Western's book, given how it seems to be a later addition to the text that already had a citation. Please be careful. Better edits will stand a better chance of remaining in the article. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. There were reasons. But it ended up being more...extensive than I planned. TimothyJosephWood 21:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this, and concur that it looks suspicious. This is edit-warring over the same content by new accounts, and I agree that this may be a case of coordination. GAB^gab 22:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: I didn't write that sentence, but I certainly agree with the author that neoliberal economic policies and "militarized policing" were key features of the Clinton administration (and subsequent ones, but Clinton was in important ways a pioneer). Michelle Alexander's 2010 book "The New Jim Crow" discusses the latter topic at length (though some will no doubt contend that the book is "not a reliable source," since it reaches unsavory conclusions). As for phrasing, I would have no problem with removing the word "heavily" since it sounds slightly awkward anyways, but the "promoted" shouldn't be controversial, since it's a simple fact of the 1990s.

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Is it really that tough to believe that more than one person might view the Clintons as neoliberals (millions of progressive Americans certainly seem to, judging by the Sanders campaign's appeal, and there is abundant academic literature on the mainstream Democrats' embrace of neoliberalism since the 1980s). Again, I ask: Because I'm new do I automatically lack the privileges of longer-term editors, who seem entitled to make arbitrary deletions and raise personal charges against other editors? Does the validity of our respective arguments not matter here (I've raised various substantive objections on this and other pages, none of which has been forthrightly answered---and often not answered at all---by my opponents)? The other editor who seems to agree with me is C.J. Griffin, whose account is not new, and with whom I've never even corresponded, so I'm not sure why I am the subject of such singular scrutiny. Are you also investigating possible coordination among the various editors who have engaged in ad hominem attacks and redbaiting against C.J. Griffin, myself, and the sources we've cited (e.g., Rjensen), and who have consistently muddied the substance of the dispute with diversionary arguments? My concern is that standards are not being applied evenly. BiblioJordan (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

BiblioJordan: This isn't about you being "new" -- it is about you obviously not being new. Why did you suddenly show up and join in an already raging edit war? Have you ever edited English Wikipedia before? If so, did you do so under a named account or under an IP? If the former, can you disclose the name of the account? If the latter, you are under no obligation todisclose your IP, but it wouldcertainlyhelp allay our suspicions. If neither, then you should explain how you randomly stumbled across an edit-war and decided to join in.

For everyone else: As my OP made clear, I did check the recent page history before posting here, and I noticed the Griffin account. I checked that account's edit history and I don't think he/she would create a sock account solely for this purpose. I do think BiblioJordan is someone (probably a long-term sockmaster or a recently indeffed user), but I don't think they are C.J. Griffin.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Regardless of who's who the second half of the edits inserting the neoliberal info into Feminism was trying to hide a criticism of a political candidate. This could and I emphasize could be seen to be trying to circumvent the American politics 2 RFAR. It was C.J. Griffin that did that[159]--Cailil ^talk 11:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Let me clear this up for everyone. I am not colluding with anyone to edit war or to vandalize articles. I have been a contributor to this encyclopedia for nearly ten years and have only ever used this one account. If you check my edit history, you'll see that I have been contributing materials to the Neoliberalism page for a few years now, and have contributed to myriad other articles on Wikipedia. Yes, I view the Clintons as neoliberals. Apparently so do many others. This topic has become an interest of mine recently given current events. I don't know who this BiblioJordan is, and I have never corresponded with this person or the other account mentioned above, but apparently we share some interests. I chalk it up to coincidence.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: As I said above, I am new to editing Wikipedia entries, but a longtime student of neoliberalism, feminism, and other topics. The Neoliberalism and Feminism articles are the first I've ever edited. I look forward to contributing to these and other entries in the future, provided that my aggressive ideological opponents do not prevent me from doing so. Again, I'm flattered that you are impressed by my grasp of the rules. BiblioJordan (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism in Bulgaria-related articles

For a number of weeks now, several Bulgaria-related articles like Bulgarian Empire, Tourism in Bulgaria, Harmanli massacre, Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), Bulgaria national football team, Bulgaria women's national ice hockey team, Serbian–Ottoman War (1876–78), Bulgaria men's national water polo team are being subject to vandalism through removal of information and/or the addition of deliberately incorrect and often utterly invented content. This is carried out by a number of IP addresses: 2601:403:4202:5C10:B5B4:DF8E:C417:C35F (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:403:4202:5C10:D85E:76C5:A7D0:C216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2601:403:4202:5C10:6479:3043:1D11:24F (talk · contribs · WHOIS), but the main (and only recurring) address seems to be 73.161.219.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These accounts are disruption-only, and I request that they are blocked, and that the indicated pages be semi-protected for a sufficient period of time. Constantine ✍ 21:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And this goes on with the latest IP incarnation 2601:403:4202:5C10:6988:A31:17DC:E707 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Constantine ✍ 20:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Dharmendra

@Senthoora poove continues to engage in edit warring and vandalism regarding the Dharmendra article, removing long established and referenced text (see [160], [161], [162]). Quis separabit? 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Dharmendra : Dharmendra is not a Muslim. @Quis Separabit References are full of wrong information.Senthoora poove (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why an editor with two series of edits on that article is being reported here. Use the talk page, WP:DRR, or WP:ANEW if things get out of hand. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violations and bogus OTRS tickets

I spend most of my time on Wiki gnoming with photos and images, either taking my own photos, copying others to Commons, or verifying licenses and/or getting rid of cruft.

For background, see the following:

• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
• Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 1#Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 March 1 (includes links to prior related problems)
• Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/OTRS ticket 1011940 - Animal Liberation Front
• Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#File:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg (permalink)

Over the years, I have repeatedly run into copyright issues with files uploaded by Slimvirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). It just happened again when I was working alphabetically through Category:Copyright holder released public domain files and came across File:Christy Turlington I'd rather go naked than wear fur.jpg.

What I would like to request is that the community require Slimvirgin to help clean up this mess. She's not an OTRS member, yet has repeatedly added OTRS tags to files that later turned out to be copyright violations. She should be forbidden from doing this in the future. Also, as an admin, she should self-delete any images she's uploaded without chrytal-clear permission. And if the photos have been copied to Commons by people who mistakenly trusted her (such as myself) she should nominate those images for deletion.

There are still images floating around the project using these bogus OTRS tickets (see, for instance, here on the latest PETA ticket discussed at WP:OTRS/N). Many of these violations have been around for almost a decade and may have been used in good faith by content re-users without knowing they're violating copyrights. Slimvirgin should be required to help stop the bleeding. Kelly ^hi! 19:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I hope only to have to comment here once. Kelly has done this to me several times over the years, and has been told the same thing each time. I asked him to stop uploading images to Commons that I had uploaded to Wikipedia, but he continued regardless.

All I know about PETA images is this: there were several releases of PETA images via several editors years ago. The emails said they released everything for which they owned the copyright. Another editor sent one of those releases to OTRS, and we were told to add that ticket number to images that clearly belonged to PETA. It was years ago and should be confirmed with someone from PETA who is authorized to make the releases. It's a perennial problem that people replying to emails on behalf of organizations believe they have the authority to make releases, but perhaps don't.

All I know about ALF images is this: the ALF is a collection of anonymous individuals, and when individuals call themselves "ALF" and add those images to an ALF website for the purpose of having the images publicized, the images are regarded as having been released into the public domain, for obvious reasons. That is, the copyright is passed to the ALF. Several of the images in question were taken after the photographers had entered facilities where animals were kept; I recall one was of someone wearing a balaclava removing a chicken in the middle of the night, not the kind of thing a named individual would attach themselves to. There was an OTRS ticket to that effect from an ALF press officer and (as I recall) a similar statement on their website. The images have been deleted, though some or all should not have been, but it's not something I have an interest in pursuing.

I would appreciate it if my name could be removed from the heading, and the heading changed. It associates my name with copyright violations and the word bogus, which implies that something untoward has been done on purpose. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Without defending the language used or way this was handled or commenting on whether this was okay historically, can you link to some sort of confirmation that these images are in the public domain in terms of copyright? Also there seems to be a contradiction. Images can't both be in the public domain and have the copyright passed to the ALF. Unless you mean the copyright was passed to the ALF who then released it into the public domain. (Copyright laws do vary and as our article mentions it's unclear or even unlikely images can be released into the public domain in all places. So it's possible the images may be in the public domain in some places and copyrighted by the ALF I guess with all rights released, ala CC0 in others.)

What we really need is a statement on the website where these are uploaded confirming this is the case, sufficiently prominent that people are likely to see it. Alternative evidence that the ALF asked the right questions for every image they received. (Note if the statement is added now, it will only apply to images from now on.) And can you also link to some evidence ALF makes an effort to ensure only copyright holders upload the images, or someone who has gotten the permission of the copyright holder to upload the image under the public domain? (Note there's a key distinction here. Giving permission to upload to the ALF website is insufficient unless the person properly understands what this means. Similar to what happens here on wikipedia of course.)

The comments of a press officer are largely irrelevant except for images they own the copyright of. Otherwise I could make a website, get people to upload content and then claim that they released it in to the public domain or some other licence or even transferred the copyright to me, despite there being no reason for these people to think so when they were uploading the content. General understandings are insufficient since there's no guarantee everyone involved has this general understanding.

Furthermore, from my experience most people don't really think about copyright in these sort of things (in the general case not with ALF in particular). They want ALF or whoever it is to publicise it, sure. Maybe they're even happy with ALF making money from it. They're probably fine with others with similar goals doing the same (publicising and maybe even making money).

They may be less happy with people with different goals etc using the images particularly commercially. For example, will contributors of these images be okay with them being used in sites, books etc catering to those who enjoy seeing animals being tortured? (Remembering laws vary, in some places such sites or books may not be illicit without copyright concerns.) Will they be okay with them being used by critics of ALF or the animal rights movement. And remember this includes any and all derivatives.

To be fair I think a lot of people don't think about these sort of things even when they do release the copyright or licence the images under a free licence. However there's a difference when people have been told they are releasing the copyright of licencing the images in a certain way, compared to where there's just a general understanding the images are going to be publicised. BTW, we often deal with similar issues in cases like photos released to the media by families of missing people. The people obviously want the images to be widely publicised, but for a certain purpose. So it's generally unclear whether they're actually releasing the copyright. And they may not even have sufficient permission to do so. E.g. the image may be professional taken or it's a selfie.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Kelly, you may remember that we spoke 8 years ago about what I perceived to be your unwillingness to let go of grudges and move on, citing SarahSV in particular - User talk:WJBscribe/Archive_20#Ugh. You assured me that I was mistaken and that you pride yourself on your ability to work with people you disagree with.
I am saddened to see - all this time later - that you haven't let the issue of SarahSV's image uploads from ALF/PETA go. There is no user conduct issue here - just our evolving standards about ensuring that copyright releases are given by the right person in suitable terms. I don't see anything that evidences deliberate wrongdoing. In the circumstances, the use of language such as "bogus OTRS tickets" and "stop the bleeding" is an unnecessarily tendentious way of presenting the situation. WJBscribe (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

POV + False royal titles + Pure vandalism

The user Gerard von Hebel has a long history of adding POV edits to articles on Portuguese Royalty (Miguelist Line pretenders) for some years now. He still editing and reverting articles based on false and unreferenced information. The Miguelist family is just a set of pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne. All information and titles cited as "factual" by Hebel (Princes, Dukes, etc.) are just titles of fantasy (not even courtesy titles) and based on Miguelist advertising literature (we must remeber that Portugal is a Republic. Also the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98, categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic). It's impossible accept information like this and refusing to name the other existent claims, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and Duke of Loulé (for example). This user factual accuracy doesn't exist and he isn't neutral. That's the truth. In fact, Gerard von Hebel just wants to cover up the real information about the History of Portugal. He intends to win the community by "fatigue" through its constant revertions on a matter which he is not understood. Please verify that he also has eliminated information that remains verifiable literature sources. As the community can see in the article of the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Hebel made more that 8 rr's to my editions!), or in the article of the pretender Duarte Nuno of Braganza, and many others, the user Gerard von Hebel still reverting factual and neutral information to disputed factual accuracy versions, and giving several titles of fantasy to the pretenders of Miguelist Line and also counting with the (sometimes usual) Cristiano Tomás support in that attitude. They accused me just to continue to publish their loved false information about this subject. Hebel user deleted also information based on verifiable references... Since last day, Cristiano and I started a consensus trial, but now cleary we can see that Gerard von Hebel is playing with our face. He is replacing all the fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; he is eliminating all the Infobox/Pretenders in Miguelist pretender articles (and placed that they are members of royalty in a Republic!); he is are reverting all information (mine and now even from other users) just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and are trying to accuse me. I ask urgently your help. We can not allow lies in Wikipedia. I'm trying now to construct a consensus, but Hebel is trying to destroy all. You can see it in his editings... Please, help me in this conflict. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Anjo-sozinho reported by User:Hebel (Result: )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hebel reported by User:Anjo-sozinho (Result: )
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive909#Anjo-sozinho on Carlos I of Portugal and related articles

David Biddulph (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a couple points to make in rebuttal to Anjo's points:

• He has a long history of popping up every couple months, setting out on huge waves of mass edits, reverting consensus agreed upon on talkpages various times, much to annoyance of many, like myself and Mr. Hebel, who try to maintain these articles' stability and credibility. Some examples include:
  • Consensus that was reached through discussion here on the use of infobox/royalty rather than infobox/pretender on the Miguelist dukes' pages and Anjo's blatant disregard for this consensus, without any community input, here, here, and here.
• The sources that Anjo continues to use are either completely biased towards the support of Maria Pia, like his use of the book entitled Maria Pia of Braganza: the Pretender, or are uncredible, like this edit using a non-sourced online encyclopedia
• Hebel and I have tried to clearly explain Wikipedia policies and the need for consensus, and in the face of other editors supporting views contradictory to his own, Anjo continues to disrupt the stability of various articles and input poorly sourced information and claims.
• Anjo's language and discourse are far too emotionally based and leave no room for reasonable understanding of WP. His "with me or against me" attitude disrupts the community Wikipedia tries to foster and attempts to cause conflict in order for his own views to be promoted. (see his language and discourse here, here, and here.

In conclusion, if there is anyone who disrupts the stability and credibility of these articles, it is User:Anjo-Sozinho, who continues to act against Wiki policy, community consensus, and in the interest of what seem to be his own personal views. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I rally, really, reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally hate getting involved in disputes like this one, but it seems pretty cut and dry.142.105.159.60 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: You said well, you take the decision "without any community input". Consensus is not that. Now what you want if force me to silence the real facts by publishing lies and dynastic advertisements to promote Miguelist pretenders. Wikipedia now is it? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now Cristiano Tomás and Gerard von Hebel are combining in their personal discussions page a way to block me just to silence the truth that I'm being reported. This is the new policy of Wikipedia? See here. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Or rather here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As all the Wikipédia administrators can see here, I still receiving more threats (and they are already enjoying shamelessly with that subject) to silence me and not to justify the vandalism that are promoting with the attribution of false titles to Miguelist pretenders. Hebel started it in a few months and continues. I ask help from the administration of Wikipedia, please. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I have the right to defend myself yet Cristiano and Hebel only want to silence me. Please, I ask again administrators help. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, every pretender on Wikipedia get's called by his courtesy title. The Duke of Bavaria, The Prince of Prussia, at least two Dukes of Savoy that hate each other and about three Margraves of Meissen that also don't agree about the succession to the throne and yes indeed also the Duke of Braganza. We don't have to agree with that policy, but it is the policy and we follow it! Can't you see how that would NOT apply to a pretender who has no courtesy titles because she is an illegitimate child who's parentage is not proven and, as even you have conceded, has not given sufficient proof for her fringe claims? And this in the context of the bare fact that you haven't succeeded in getting any consensus for your repetitive battle against the way we handle these things in the last years? I can't make it any clearer than that. Also read up on how Wikipedia works as it should and how we are not here to promote our pet causes but to write an encyclopedia. I don't think you understand that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012) and as "...Her Royal Highness D. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Crown Princess of Portugal" in Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006. But there are more and more examples and you don't have any proof to tell that her claims are false. If you call "Dukes" to foreign persons (remember that the Portuguese Courts and Law banish all foreigns from the sucession line, even to President of the Republic role), Miguelists cannot be Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, in Portugal. They are born in Switzerland (Duarte Pio), in Austria-Hungary (Duarte Nuno), in Germany (Miguel Januário). Just Maria Pia of Braganza was born in Portugal and she was born at the time of last Portuguese Monarchy. That's the facts. If you used the same criteria for treatment in all articles of the pretenders in question (Miguelist and Saxe-Coburg) so I could even agree with you. But you don't... or you think to reconsider that? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just adding an example of Anjo-Sozinho distorting a neutral invitation on a talk page to an ongoing discussion, playing victim and displaying clear bias: here. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, distorting and partially deleting another users comment on a talk page while inserting your own text is clearly the limit. That is a serious act of vandalism and reprehensible behavior like that should not be tolerated in any circumstances. That is a serious incident. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Having had a read through the talk pages of Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, I can't help but feel the [{WP:BOOMERANG|bent piece of wood]] is coming back. @Anjo-sozinho: you do not have consensus and fighting the same fight with the same editors on multiple pages repeatedly is disruptive. You presented your case, multiple editors had problems with your sources and your argument, as it was not policy backed. You even tried a RFC which was soundly rejected. If you don't want to get blocked for disruption (not to mention the ad hominem comments), the next step should be WP:DRN or you best back down. Blackmane (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Very well... so I will be silenced as they want (Hebel and Cristiano) and false information (pure false dynastic advertising) will remain in Miguelist articles. False "reigns", false dukes (titles of fantasy as real titles, etc.), any neutrality, any accuracy. That's very bad to Wikipedia credibility... but ok. I don't agree with your position, but now I see how this is a campaign to promote some people here (Miguelist pretenders)... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who is what and where in Portugal. If it is arguable that multiple reliable sources state that their pet dog was given a title and it's relevant to the article, then by all means put that in. Discussions were had, you presented your side with your sources, a significant amount of dissent occurred and you failed to receive consensus this time. All you have to do is come up with a compelling policy backed argument. Once you start throwing around accusations of bias then you have to realise that the coin also has a second side, which is to say you too may have a bias. You may want to think about that. Blackmane (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

POV-pusher with CIR issues refusing to listen

I opened an ANI thread about Pldx1 (talk · contribs) following me around, making nonsense talk page arguments, and making a mess of the article space about a month ago, but it got archived without result. He/she has since continued to claim that everyone agrees with him despite almost everyone disagreeing with him, most recently here. This user constantly cites the essay WP:SNOW despite apparently not having read it, and every time I try to interact with them they post "replies" to me that indicate that they either have not read or have not understood what I wrote. They are no longer the only user disagreeing with me on the fine points of my MOS:KOREA proposal (which are not relevant here), but while the others (some of whom have actually made sensible arguments) have all proven capable of collegial and congenial discourse, Pldx1 has ... not.

Users who live in their own little world where consensus doesn't count don't really have a place on Wikipedia, especially when they seem incapable of comprehending that consensus is not on their side.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree about the pertinence of stepping back from using the RR romanization of Korean for determining the title of articles about Korea (except from those related to North Korea). Reasons for that have been given (by various contributors, in various places). This a fact. Moreover, User:Hijiri88 should explain, in good flat English, what is the meaning of his sentence "following me around" ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

1. You saw that I edited the page List of rulers of Ife and decided to attack said edit. You admitted here that you were motivated to do so by your dispute with me over MOS:KOREA. This is what I meant by "following me around" (which isn't a "sentence").
2. Your assessment of the discussion on WT:MOSKOREA and Talk:Baekje (not "various places"; only two) is laughably wrong, as any of the other participants will attest (pinging User:SMcCandlish or User:AjaxSmack). For just one example, the discussion is not about "determining the title of articles about Korea".
3. Every single edit you make is near-inscrutable -- you should not tell others they need to write "in good flat English".
4. This is not another forum for you to express your opinion about Korean romanization. ANI is for discussion of user conduct. I feel your conduct warrants a block.
5. "I disagree about the pertinence of stepping back from using the [Revised] romanization" is an incredibly overwritten sentence. Most of what you have written on the MOS talk page is similarly ungrammatical, and sometimes it is impossible to tell what you are trying to say.
6. I have asked you several times to stop pinging me.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Haven't been following this dispute in any detail. I concur that the WT:MOSKOREA and Talk:Baekje discussion (essentially the same conversation in two places) is not really about determining the title[s] of articles about Korea, but about consistency in approach to Korean transliteration (and how much consistency is desirable or practical, and in what direction(s) to standardize, on what basis or bases). But as this would directly affect the titles of some of those articles, I would WP:AGF on that count. While WP:COMPETENCE is expected, we also try pretty hard to work with people for whom English is a second[+] language. I get the sense the CIR problem is thought to be deeper than that. Diffs might help establish such a case, especially the anti-consensus stance-taking, which sounds like a WP:1AM / WP:STONEWALL / WP:NOTGETTINGIT concern. It's clear Hijiri88 is incensed, but there's not much to go on here. The diff provided in the first paragraph indicates a failure to read consensus correctly (I have been involved in that discussion, as an essentially neutral party urging an analytical approach instead of an emotive one); but it's followed by potentially valid comments about one of the romanization systems, so it doesn't seem completely pointless. In short, we need to see evidence of an identifiable pattern of disruptive editing for there to be something to act on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I linked to the previous ANI thread because I gave all the evidence that was available at the time there. I figured the only further diff necessary was the most recent one that directly instigated this thread, but here are a couple more from the intervening weeks: Here he called an automatic comment generated by a bot ("Removing expired RFC template") a close result, here he called the removal of the expired RFC template a "snow closing" in his favour, when he was the only one who opposed the proposal, and called my implementation of the RFC proposal "unilateral", here he counted "two" (rather than the correct five) users opposing him on the RFC and called his opinion a "snow" result, and here he claimed I was putting words in his mouth by pointing out that all of his comments in the RFC were to insinuate that I was pushing some North Korean agenda. Note that he again brought up North Korea, completely out of the blue, in his comment in this thread. He also brought up "snow" on the previous ANI thread -- and I had absolutely no idea what on earth he was talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Also worth pointing out is the utter inscrutability of his first several comments in the RFC, and their even more ridiculous edit summaries. Someone really needs to talk to this guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I find them "scrutable" enough; the grammar is just a bit rough. His position is is that there are only two possible reliable sources for transliteration/romanization of the Korean language, the two collective bodies of "officialdom" in South and North Korea, respectively. This is not an impossible-to-follow argument, it's simply wrong. It's a prescriptive grammarian position that what is "right" or "correct" about a language and how we treat it is handed to us by authority figures who deem themselves experts or rule-makers. This view was popular in the English-speaking world in the Victorian era, and remains popular in France (which has the Académie française issuing official standards. But it's a linguistically silly position. When it comes to transliteration and romanization matters, it really doesn't matter. For WP purposes, the reliable sources are books, journals, and other publications, not organizations that declare themselves magically "official". It's already been observed in that discussion that there is in fact a third system, preferred in some linguistic journals. So, so much for that argument. However, having made an argument that can't be sustained, and not doing so in perfect English, isn't really an ANI disciplinary matter.

If we're back here again in 6 months and Pldx1 is still depending on argument to authority and insisting that WP "must" follow the governmental preferences of SK and NK and cannot come to its own WP:CONSENSUS about how best to represent Korean names to our readers (and in what contexts – we seem to have at least three, as general classes: SK, NK, and historical Korea, before the split), then we might be dealing with a WP:ADVOCACY / WP:GREATWRONGS style-campaigning problem. But the third of that series of diffs indicates that Pldx1 is presently just advocating that we use only the SK standard for SK, the NK standard for NK, and apply this to historical topics based on where they are centered, on the basis that historical topics are covered by modern sources, so we should not use obsolete systems for historical topics, and ties his preferences to (in the fourth message) also to ease of entry on regular keyboards. These aren't unreasonable arguments to advance, and are ones we're familiar with in regard to Chinese and Japanese, etc., too. Then again, in his fourth post he suggests that his preferences are being rejected "because some old-minded people dislike the Korean regulations" which is a little WP:BATTLEGROUNDish. Overall, I say close this ANI with no action, let it ride, and see if the situation improves. One person thumping rulebooks that are not authoritative on Wikipedia is unlikely to have much effect on the overall discussion, and he doesn't seem to presently be disrupting it, just recycling the same argument a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Meh. You may be completely right, but I don't agree with your interpretation of what he wrote, as that (i.e., the concept that language is handed down from authorities) still would not make any sense as an argument against my proposal, even for someone who believes it. I think he was either deliberately trolling or believed we were trying to push some sort of North Korean agenda, and I think that if we got a Korean speaker to accurately translate what you just wrote and send it to him, he would probably agree with me that that is not what he meant.

But this is already TLDR. Maybe another archived thread ANI thread where he was being threatened with a block will be enough to keep him quiet from now one. Or maybe it will just embolden him to say that this is just another "snow" close in his favour.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:193.60.234.209

Just to draw to someone's attention.

• 16:12, April 20, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 is blocked for 24 hours
• 15:08, April 22, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 is blocked for a week
• 13:35, April 26, 2016 - User:193.60.234.210 is blocked for a month
• 18:34, June 16, 2016 - User:193.60.234.210 is blocked for 3 months
• 10:54, June 20, 2016 - User:193.60.234.209 starts editing again

If you need confirmation that they are related please see the following two edits where 210 comments on 209's talk page while the 209 account is blocked.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:193.60.234.209&diff=prev&oldid=716419875
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:193.60.234.209&diff=prev&oldid=716424987

Also they both seem interested in the same articles, for example...

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days&action=history
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wow!_signal&action=history

Oh, and the User:193.60.234.210 discussion is still at the top of this page at the present time. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• AlistairMcMillan, is there a particular edit which bothers you? I note that their Wow! edit seems solid, and, on the other hand, I don't quite understand this unexplained revert. Anywayz, Drmies (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• They are both shared IPs, registered to University College London. It's possible that an individual has edited disruptively using both IPs but there again, other individuals may be making perfectly fine edits using these IPs too (though I note a school block has been applied to 193.60.234.210). The recent edits from 193.60.234.209 look fine to me and probably not the individual who was editing Around the World in Eighty Days or Wow! signal in April. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. It could be different editors. Maybe everyone at University College London is confrontational and overtly familiar with Wikipedia policies. :) AlistairMcMillan (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

So if you think an anon editor is a chronic abuser who is evading a community ban what is the process? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How to report an Admin?

Hello, how can I report and admin that has locked an article unfairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutral2006 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

He's talking about me. I've locked a page because this editor has refused to discuss his large changes point by point on the article talk page, which I have instructed him to do. I opted to lock the article to force them to discuss the issues, rather than block anyone for edit warring, as I felt that was a more constructive approach in this case. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything "unfair" about that, Neutral2006. If it is true that you won't discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page, why is that? BMK (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, especially since I protected it so that neither editor in the dispute could edit it. (And the protection probably kept him from breaking WP:3RR as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This is about a yet-to-be-released video game? How about we apply WP:CRYSTAL and strip the article down to a bare-facts stub until the game is released? BMK (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Step away from the rabbit hole BMK. Star Citizen is a bucketful of crazy. Its basically selling in-game assets for real money for a game that hasnt been released yet (and is likely never going to be in the form of which it was promised) and by 'money', I mean $$$$$. Its actually a number of seperate sub-game/modules lumped together. None of which currently work as intended. This developers of this particular game are also currently going through a PR spat with numerous people, including Derek Smart. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually just watch this video by Chris Roberts if you have a spare 30 mins. Interesting only because it illustrates why its unlikely to *ever* be released properly. Also note the directors chair with his name on it in the background. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, goody, sounds like it'll be a spicy article when everything blows up. BMK (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In which case we are probably actively promoting some crowdfunding b*****s, and the article should be stubbed (as per BMK above) to prevent the possibility of promotionalism. Muffled Muffled Pocketed 18:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral2006 has finally started engaging in discussion on the article talk page, and they seem to be chipping away at the problems. Their issues tend to be more along the lines of the little details. (Is the release date 2016 or TBA? Is there a source for this? Etc.) So the stubbing wouldn't especially help solve their issues, but by all means, feel free to trim back if you want to on the grounds of just making the article better. Its fully protected right now for 3 days, but I hope to repeal it sooner if they can work their way through their issues. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple personal attacks by anon. user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here and here. Very nice... _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

To me, they're coming off as they are talking about themself. Someone correct me if I am wrong. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The indentation makes it clear it is intended to be part of the preceeding section. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing style and location show similarity to a number of ips, some of which have been blocked, mostly for socking, such as this, and this, and this. This one is recently active. There have been abusive edit summaries from those accounts such as this and ridiculous/aggressive ones such as this and this. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass genre changes by Martin 1887

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Martin 1887 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone through a large number of articles and mass-changed the genre of them all, per their contribution history, without discussion or consensus, even after I have posted {{uw-genre1}} and {{uw-genre2}} on their talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• At some point, we'll have to treat genres with almost BLP-levels of scrutiny to stop this nonsense. The editor seems to have stopped. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No, he's still going.[163][164][165][166][167] These are just a few, and he has even been restoring his genre changes after he has been reverted. Consensus was reached some time ago that resulted in changes to {{Infobox television}} instructions so that they would note that genres must be sourced. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back at it today, with a string of weird edits. Someone with a mop needs to give him 24 hours on the naughty step. Nothing else is getting his attention. --Drmargi (talk) 01:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Administrative action required. [168][169][170][171] Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. Not one edit summary let alone talk page post. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

After Martin 1887 was blocked this editor started making similar changes at the same articles.[172] Seems more than coincidental. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Someone needs to permablock the sock, IP and master pronto. He's active right now, jumping between the three accounts,and totally disregarding the warnings on his talk pages. Waiting for this to bubble through the perennial backlog at SPI could take weeks while Logical Fuzz, Alex the Whovian, Aussie Legend and I chase his edits all over the map. --Drmargi (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Just noting that Martin 1887 is now indef blocked and Buddieboy 93 is blocked for a month after this SPI report. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Da Faggius Richardio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Appears to be a hoax/attack page. After author removed speedy tag and it was put back up, a new author (user:Sherlach) removed the tag. I don't want to revert in case I'm not hearing the quack properly however the page probably shouldn't wait for a prod/afd to be removed. PGWG (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please delete this hoax article and possibly block the 2 sock/meatpuppets that have edited it. So much WP:NOTHERE... Shearonink (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

CSD has been returned on the page by RickinBaltimore. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just saw that after I posted here. Having it here will at least cover if another username is created to remove the tag. PGWG (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That garbage is now gone, thanks to KrakatoaKatie. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Globally banned user Messina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Globally banned Messina (talk · contribs) is currently active with several sockpuppets. See contributions of:

• JamTe47 (talk · contribs)
• JamTe46 (talk · contribs)
• JamTe45 (talk · contribs)
• James91_Brown (talk · contribs)
• 37.49.81.5 (talk · contribs)

Maybe semi-protect the affected pages? --Schulhofpassage (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

This belongs to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamTe46 I've just filed (and updating now). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note: James91_Brown, JamTe46 were globally locked by Bennylin, JamTe45 was globally locked by Stryn and JamTe47 was blocked locally by Bbb23 (but not locked globally). --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 23:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Now active as JamTe48 (talk · contribs). --Schulhofpassage (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note: JamTe48 was blocked by DeltaQuad --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Note: Also back as Peter Brow and globally locked by RadiX --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated Copyright Violations - Ravindu Navin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ravindu Navin continues to upload copyrighted images, in contravention of WP:policies, despite repeated warnings. He often uploads the same image with different file names, in order to circumvent previous deletions. At last count there was over a dozen copy right images that he had uploaded (most of which have been subsequently deleted). Dan arndt (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours. I deleted all but one of the non-free images but the last one might be fair use, so I left it for now. If he persists after the block expires, he should be blocked indefinitely. Ping me if that block is necessary. Katie^talk 03:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gransuministros

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think this Gransuministros needs to be taken care of. In spite of receiving a warning for his vandal edit, he repeated that once again. Is he really here to build an encyclopedia? Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indef for spamming. Thanks, Nakon 05:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

Made on my talk page. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Also see here: [173]. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked (48 hours since it's a possibly rotating IP). BethNaught (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe the link to the official tour site would be OK in an external links section (though not the prose of the article). However, the legal threats are obviously completely inappropriate and the IP was properly blocked accordingly.--Mojo Hand (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I reverted due to it being in-line. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this legitimately the official tour site? Interestingly, I can't find a link to it from the Drake's primary website[174], nor from his Facebook page[175], nor from his Twitter feed[176].

I'm smelling a sock here. I noticed the website is by IDrive Media Group and lists as a "partner" the website allstarweekendcharlotte.com. In 2014/2015 we were seeing very similarly worded legal threats from the owner of the website allstarweekendnewyork.com, whose archive.org record shows it was created by I-Drive Orlando, whose website shows it's also part of IDrive Media Group. For those prior threats, see User talk:Idriveorlando and this IP diff. Also, the WhoIs data on IPs related to those earlier edits show the same network and same geolocation data as the IP involved in these tour site edits. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I added an external link section with a link to tour information hosted on the performer's official website - as I said, that site does not reference the one being added by the IP, so I did not add the IPs site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive edits by dynamic ip

On the advice of User:Yaris678 I come here to have your advice about a months-lasting problem on articles dealing with 16-17th centuries Ottoman harem articles, i.e. sultans' children and concubines. These are repeatedly edited by an user using dynamic ip, who insists on the addition of unsourced content and often simply replaces sourced content with his own while keeping the source or adds a new unsourced content just before the footnote, thus making his unsourced statements appear sourced. Some pages have been protected some months ago, but the disruptive editing resumed as soon as the protection was lifted. The user doesn't answer when contacted, doesn't want or isn't able to go to talkpage. This article's history is symptomatic of the problem that goes on and on on several articles ([177], [178], [179] [180] [181] [182] etc etc) What do you suggest?--Phso2 (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Phso2:More than one IP range is being used so the only option seems to be requests for semi protection on articles being hit frequently. Doug Weller talk 05:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have two points to make on this:

• That would be semi-protecting quite a few pages (6, on top of the two already semied, I think). If that is the correct response then that is fine with me. I thought it would require wider discussion, which is why I suggested that Phso2 post here, rather than at WP:RFPP.
• As things currently stand, there has been little further disruption on these pages since Phso2 posted here. Perhaps those edits were a response to the semi-protecting of the other two pages and now that editor has got bored.

Perhaps the best response at the moment is just to keep an eye on these pages. If the consensus is that semi-protection is the way to respond if this pattern returns, then I'm happy to apply that.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DinoLover4321

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Despite repeated requests for him or her to cease (as evidenced on his or her talk page), User:DinoLover4321 has continued to create dozens of extremely short and near content-less pages with absolutely no sources, as well as upload several images in blatant violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, such as:

• File:Saltasaurus_Skeleton.jpg
• File:Mourasuchus.jpg
• File:Herd Of Diplodocus.jpg

I request that he or she be barred from creating new pages and uploading files, if not blocked from editing completely. JohannSnow (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This user was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive925#User:DinoLover4321. --Yamla (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not particularly taking a position here. I don't know enough about dinosaurs to really weigh in. But it could be the user simply isn't aware of their talk page and so haven't noticed the warnings. Unfortunately, the only real way to draw attention to a user's talk page may be to block them. --Yamla (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was not possible to stop the orange bar from lighting up around "Talk" at the top of the page when someone posts to one's talk page. If that is the case, it would be pretty hard to ignore such a signal. BMK (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I support an indef block. This user should not be allowed to continue editing until and unless (s)he understands the copyright policy. As an aside, I have a user script that pops up a message about talk pages on every edit or upload and can be forcibly added to an editor's common.js, but that's not the best solution here because of the copyvios. MER-C 08:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

An indef block may be needed. A WP:CIR issue, clearly. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a clear sign of WP:CIR. Their talkpage suggests no attempt to interact with anyone or address the many issues raised. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, reached out to DinoLover4321 here. I was sorely tempted to set a "wake-up block", and then thought about creating What nerdy kids do when they grow up as a WP:REDIRECT to Wikipedia. And thought better about both of those. Let's see what happens.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bumping this since the editor being scrutinized has not edited since June 19. If they are simply waiting for this to archive, then the issues will persist with no action being taken. Rgrds. --64.85.216.240 (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

  If the editor "being scrutinized" hasn't edited since the 19th and the complaint was made on the 20th then it is possible that they are completely unaware of the incident inquiry being lodged. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User has continued editing (albeit only a single article) without any acknowledgement they've found their talk page and the numerous warnings there. I've placed a block which can be lifted by any admin once the user acknowledges the concerns. --Yamla (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yamla: I personally think it would be helpful for there to be an official block notice on the user's talk-page. That way, if down the line they want to request unblock, the link is there to publicly do so. If a year or more from now the editor responds to the current thread on their TP, who knows what admin may still happen to be around watching and bothering to check that page that week? Best to have an official way for them to request unblock, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. --Yamla (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iran Deal With Boeing

No request for admin action here. See the dispute resolution policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello, The last week was a big moment for Boeing and Iran , and they can talk and deal after 36 years.The list of airplanes are published by the newspapers.(My reference here is Reuters). Some Arab countries are very disappointed by this agreement because Iran can grab a big market in Middle East and can be a hub between Asia and Europe.I believe the Arab governments employees wanted to destroy the deal and clean even sign of contract in Wikipedia. Thanks, Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave9876543 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC) The OP is edit warring against consensus to only use firm orders listed on the manufacturer's website. Preliminary agreements are not firm orders and do not get listed in Orders table. This has been noted in the numerous edit summaries by several different editors, and user has been warned for edit warring and violating 3RR. I'm certainly not connected with any Arab government, and I'm pretty sure the other long-term editors aren't reverting for that reason either. - BilCat (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Thanks for explanation BilCat, The Arab countries (mainly Saudi) has a lots of employees in the internet to hack and destroy all Iranian news and success and even geographical name .The fact is fact and nobody should not change it.I am glad to hear you are not Arab.The Reuters is a very reliable source and the contract will be come in the Boeing website, just because of previous problems with Iran like sanction(that lifted partially) they need some permission of Ministry of Finance to report it in the Boeing website.The Airbus website also has this problem however they will deliver the first airplane in the end of October 2016 to Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave9876543 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC) I never said that I was or wasn't Arab, but that I'm not connected with any Arab government. As to the particulars of the issue, this isn't the appropriate venue for that. You need to discuss the issue at Talk:Boeing 777X. This page is for reporting problem users that need to be dealt with by an administrator. The likely outcome here is that you'll be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 01:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) Dave9876543 You don't like the Arabs mate? Well; you better get back to Tripoli on a Regeandeer sleigh, because racism is pretty incollegiate around here. Muffled Pocketed 16:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC) So sad that you did not read my talk completely and you misjudged.I reported you that I can introduce many sources that Arab countries like to change history/geography in the sites.However you like to insist on your idea and I am sorry for wiki.You denied Reuters report ,You have Trump with many supporters in USA so don't talk about racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave9876543 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Links to http://fadedpage.com

• fadedpage.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User:Humbug26 has lately been adding external links to a Canadian website, fadedpage.com, which features full texts of literary works, to many articles concerning authors. Although these works may be out of copyright in Canada, most of them are still copyrighted in their countries of origin (mainly Britain and the U.S.). I've previously queried Moonriddengirl about such situations here, and her opinion seems to have been that we shouldn't be linking to copies of such works when they're still under copyright in their countries of origin. I'm not advocating any sanctions against Humbug26 for what seems to be good-faith edits in an unclear situation, but if anyone agrees with me that these edits are unacceptable, could someone do a mass revert of the links to fadedpage.com? I'm too ignorant to do such a mass revert myself. Deor (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I support reversion of this mass vandalism of insertion of links to an unedited blog. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC).

• I don't have the mass rollback script installed or I'd do it myself. If nothing else, it's spamming, and I suspect this is an employee or owner of that site. Katie^talk 00:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• IS there a faster way to get rid of these links other than an editor rolling back each individual edit? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

There are various scripts for doing mass rollbacks. I reverted 79 top revisions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And yes, there are plenty of mass-rollback scripts out there. I have one installed, just in case such a need ever arises. Omni Flames (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

First, let me acknowledge and accept the decision of those who have issues with my latest edits. It was never my intent to destroy the integrity of this site. Second, let me clarify that Faded Page is not a blog. This is an archival site created to collect the efforts of the volunteers at Distributed Proofreaders Canada. I looked at this being similar to Distributed Proofreaders in the United States with their relationship to Project Gutenberg. Accordingly I proceeded on that assumption, incorrectly as it now seems. Distributed Proofreaders Canada and Faded Page are mentioned as legitimate sites in the article for Distributed Proofreaders. Third, thank you for not putting any sanctions against me for my actions. The copyright restrictions applied to edits at this site, based in the United States, does cause confusion for anyone not cognizant with all the nuances in your treatment of copyrights. Lastly, I will alert the community at Distributed Proofreaders Canada (I am registered there) through their forum that any linking to Faded Page at Wikipedia is not allowed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Humbug26 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

A curiously-phrased response to say the least.... _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Since when has Wikipedia banned links to legitimate external sources, not pirate sites, operating within the laws of their own countries, based solely based on Wikipedia's evaluation of what copyrights might apply to material they contain in some other country? I think that if Wikipedia is going to go to this extreme of copyright religious piety, at least the site should give itself a pat on the back by proudly placing a banner on the pages announcing that publicly available sources have been censored from the article. Wnt (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you're saying that something like "Works by P. C. Wren at Faded Page" is totally unacceptable because Canadian law is wrong. But would it be an equally blasphemy to write "works by P. C. Wren are indexed at Faded Page?" Is it indeed intolerable to admit that Faded Page exists, or to have an article about Distributed Proofreaders at all? Maybe this whole weird concept of an internet thingy that allows people to jump between sites in different countries was a mistake to begin with, a great wrong that Wikipedia is going to start setting right? Where exactly does this go from here? Wnt (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)